UK poll: Conservatives significantly more likely than liberals to hate Snowden's leaks

[Otelo]

In Britain, the number of conservatives who consider Snowden's NSA leaks "good for society" is slightly higher than the number of conservatives who consider it "bad for society".

% WHO SAY GOOD/% WHO SAY BAD
Con 42/35
UKIP 37/36

As ideology moves away from conservatism, we see an overwhelming advantage by those who consider it "good for society."

LABOR 54/14
LIB/DEM 57/17

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/hy8mpku1lj/YG-Archive-140409-Edward-Snowden.pdf

[Doctor_J]

1. Matches the DU thinking on the issue

[sabrina 1]

35. Yep, same in the US. Right Wingers far more likely to hate Whistle Blowers and Journalists who

refuse to cave to the propaganda machine and publish the truth, than Liberals/Progressives or as some refer to Democrats, the Left.

Not surprising since the real LEFT always opposed Bush policies while the faux Left has exposed itself over the past several years as nothing of the kind.

[dilby]

2. I disagree with this.

There are some liberals who feel our current government can do no wrong and thus they are keeping in step with the party line on Snowden.

[Dragonfli]

4. Are you sure you are not refering to NeoLiberals that are basically Conservatives

that are liberal on some social issues like marriage equality and a woman's right to choose but agree with economic conservatism? Many such are Democrats after all.

[sabrina 1]

36. Not liberals, they are Third Way/DLC which have infiltrated the Dem Party for a couple of decades

now and have succeeded in rising to powerful positions in the party. Our job now since we know this, is to take back OUR PARTY from these Conservatives/Reagan Repubs/Dems before they do any more damage.

[Dragonfli]

3. Similar results were shown in a DU poll here where 92% of those that responded

gave the Whistle blowing a "thumbs up".

There are very few Conservatives on this site which I believe is the main reason for the results. Interestingly, the most notoriously Conservative posters here did not participate in that poll, but their displeasure has been very extreme, quite vocal and well noted.

Conservatives historically prefer a population under surveillance, Hoover was well liked by the Conservatives for his work regarding the tapping of liberal movement leaders and civil rights leaders, so naturally it is no surprise that they inversely show a visceral dislike for whistle blowers that may be key to ending the attacks on our fourth amendment rights by spotlighting such abuses as universal surveillance under Clapper (the new Hoover and darling of the right, who of course is also a Conservative).

[randome]

6. A DU poll is indicative of nothing.

Outside the Internet, few are up in arms about Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dragonfli]

7. True, most of the visceral hatred of whistle blowing does appear to be on the internet

That does not negate the fact that the hatred is generally expressed on the internet by Conservatives, hence the support for whistle blowers HERE where, as I have said, Conservatives are in the minority.

On Conservative boards it appears to be the opposite, where a majority show such hatred.

Polls in general mean very little, but they can shed light on the attitudes of those that respond to them.

[randome]

9. 'Hatred'. Hah!

I'm on the record for saying that neither Chelsea Manning nor Snowden should have the book thrown at them. I'm on the record for saying if the NSA was disbanded tomorrow, it would mean nothing to me.

That's because I refuse to take a side but absolutely insist on seeing things as they really are. Snowden revealed nothing we didn't already know. That's a fact. He and Greenwald seem to want nothing more than to embarrass the current Administration, which ties in with their Libertarian philosophy.

Even Jon Stewart mocked Snowden last night.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

10. What did Jon have to say about it, randome?

[randome]

14. When he was discussing Putin's truthworthiness.

"Isn't there anyone who can pin Putin down?"

And when Snowden's recorded question was about to be broadcast: "Oh! The Snowman! If anyone can hold Putin's feet to the fire, it's this cat."

And after Snowden asked his question: "Ohhh! How's old Vladdie gonna get out of this one?"

Culminating with: "Touche. Who would have ever thought Putin could outwit a pre-recorded question from the man whose life is in his hands?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

17. Thank you, randome.. how could he pass that up?.. it practically writes itself.

And, thanks to Jon Stewart!

"Isn't there anyone who can pin Putin down?"

And when Snowden's recorded question was about to be broadcast: "Oh! The Snowman! If anyone can hold Putin's feet to the fire, it's this cat."

And after Snowden asked his question: "Ohhh! How's old Vladdie gonna get out of this one?"

Culminating with: "Touche. Who would have ever thought Putin could outwit a pre-recorded question from the man whose life is in his hands?"

[randome]

19. And as an aside: Gina McCarthy, Stewart's guest, EPA Administrator...

...was extremely well-spoken as she outlined the steps she is taking to mitigate Climate Change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

21. Great.. Happy Earth Day!

[Dragonfli]

13. I didn't mention you did I? why did you respond as if I did? Defensive much /nt

A

[randome]

16. I don't deal with 'defensive' when I truly don't care if I'm right or wrong.

It seemed to me as if the OP (and perhaps you) are trying to say that DUers who hold a different opinion are 'Conservatives'.

Perhaps that was an unwarranted assumption on my part.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dragonfli]

18. Please, don't read tea leaves, read what I write, I have enough trouble

responding to criticism of things I really do write.
Just do me that courtesy, OK?

[randome]

20. Fair enough.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

24. "Fucked enough".

That is how I would respond, but hey, we are friends here.

[rhett o rick]

49. If one walks like a conservative and talks like a conservatives and hates whistle-blowers

most likely they are conservative. Liberals have no problem holding the president's feet to the fire. Conservatives do.

[grasswire]

43. You flatter yourself often. nt

[sabrina 1]

38. You must not get out very much. I have to totally disagree with you having travelled across the

country over the past couple of years, and EVERYONE, regardless of party affiliation, is OUTRAGED over what has been going on.

It's been kind of nice being able to agree with people I normally avoid even talking to on at least the issue of our Civil Rights. It gives ME hope that when it comes to this country people actually CAN put their personal politics aside and unite to try to preserve this democracy.

Polls confirm this. Not only does an overwhelming MAJORITY of the country support Snowden as a Whistle Blower, but the numbers have INCREASED since last summer DESPITE the propaganda intended to smear him.

People just aren't buying all the talking points and propaganda and smear campaighns anymore.

Not surprising to most of us Dems, the American people when it comes down to it, are very fond of their Constitutional Rights. That is what they are told they are 'fighting for' in all of our wars, and they BELIEVE it.

Ironically the very propaganda used as PR for all of our 'wars', is now working AGAINST them as people actually truly support the US Constitution.

That has been truly encouraging to see for Dems.

[Zorra]

5. Of course. Conservatives worship authority. Whenever anything, or anyone, challenges their beloved

authoritarian institutions, such as the MIC, conservatives get upset.

[randome]

8. Even Jon Stewart mocked Snowden last night.

I'd say this poll means little.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[JI7]

11. it says more about politics in the UK than anything else

also they have surviellance cameras just about everywhere there . which i don't have a problem with and would support here.

[sabrina 1]

40. You can choose to give away YOUR rights, but don't think most of the American people are going to

allow you to give away ALL OF OUR RIGHTS. The UK has always been a brutal, Imperialist power. Odd you would cite their oppressive, surveillance state as something to SUPPORT, right here on a Dem forum. The UK people however have always overwhelmingly opposed their Govt's oppression abroad and at home.

I was happy to see therefore that unlike here, the UK people have NOT 'moved forward' from war crimes and are pushing forward to hold Blair, War Criminal, accountable for his part in the War Crimes committed by both the UK leadership and the US.

A report, based on years long investigation, has now been sent to the Hague.

War criminals despite protection from their governments, for a while, never rest easy which is as it should be. There are just too many victims for that to happen.

[sabrina 1]

39. Of course you would! Lol!

[SwankyXomb]

51. Stewart's a comedian. He mocks everyone.

What's your excuse?

[Marr]

12. As usual, the conservatives are just tiny group of obnoxious loudmouths

who take up way more time and attention than their numbers warrant.

[Dragonfli]

15. Agreed /nt

[Number23]

22. Are you sure your headline matches your info?

It says quite clearly that in the UK, the number of conservatives that consider Snowden's leaks good for society are higher than those who consider it bad for society.

And that matches with what's going on in the U.S. as well. Conservatives seem to be rallying around the guy http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-right-rallies-to-edward-snowden/

and unsurprisingly, he is the the absolutely darling of libertarians https://campaign.ronpaulchannel.com/snowden/petition/

with some saying he will usher in even more 'libertarian millenials' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10157586/Edward-Snowden-there-will-be-more-Libertarian-Millennials-like-him.html

A recent Huff Post survey of Americans show that Repub support is slightly higher for Snowden, very slightly.

Both Republicans (40 percent to 27 percent) and Democrats (40 percent to 26 percent) tended to say that Snowden did the wrong thing, while independents were more likely to say he did the right thing (36 percent to 26 percent). Likewise, both Democrats and Republicans were much more likely than independents to say they thought Snowden should be prosecuted.

Independents said, 61 percent to 18 percent, that Americans had a right to know about the programs Snowden revealed, making it the group most likely to say that. But pluralities of Democrats (46 percent to 29 percent) and Republicans (48 percent to 30 percent) said the same. http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/c3cn5y4itm/tabs_HP_snowden_20140328.pdf

[randome]

25. Yes. Therein lies my confusion about what this OP was insinuating.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Number23]

26. I'm not sure either

But it's still funny how some folks lept up to conclude that it was true without even reading the first sentence apparently.

[randome]

27. The tactic I take is this:

Start off by assuming you're wrong or misinterpreting something. If it still looks good to you, then you're golden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. yes, because far more Lab/Lib Dems think they're good for society, and far fewer think they're bad

% WHO SAY GOOD/% WHO SAY BAD
Con 42/35
UKIP 37/36

LABOR 54/14
LIB/DEM 57/17

Furthest right is UKIP - there, the difference is +1 for 'good'
Next right is the Conservatives = +6 for 'good'
You can argue about which is more centrist and which more left for Labour and Lib Dem - Lib Dem tends to be more left for civil liberties, Labour more left for economics. But both are +30 for 'good', in this case.

So the headline of "Conservatives significantly more likely than liberals to hate Snowden's leaks" is completely accurate. Whether you look at the difference between 'good' and 'bad', or just at the level for 'bad', it's true. Your problem was that you looked at the conservative figure, and didn't look at the liberal one.

[Number23]

61. Well, I guess if you want to say that barely 10% is a "significant" difference then your post makes

perfect sense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. There is no figure there that is 'barely 10%'

Using the figures for the strictest reading of the thread title that you couldn't understand:
Conservatives that hate Snowden's leaks: 35%
Liberal Democrats that hate Snowden's leaks: 17%
So Conservatives are twice as likely to hate the leaks. Or a difference of 18%. How did you manage to manufacture 'barely 10%' from the figures?

[Number23]

64. From your own post

% WHO SAY GOOD/% WHO SAY BAD
Con 42/35
UKIP 37/36

LABOR 54/14
LIB/DEM 57/17

I was looking at the good, you were looking at the bad. For Con/Labor - 42% good is only 12% lower than 54% good. And that still doesn't dispute my original point that even with those numbers, the number of conservatives that consider the leaks good was still higher than those that consider it bad and that in America, conservatives are rallying to Snowden.

You seem far more interested in arguing than discussing for some pointless reason so I'll leave you to it. I'll go look for someone who is up in arms and gunning for a fight over something important.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. You complained the thread title wasn't backed up by the figures

So here's the thread title again, since it doesn't seem to be displaying on your screen:

"UK poll: Conservatives significantly more likely than liberals to hate Snowden's leaks"

You replied to that:

"Are you sure your headline matches your info?"

You then managed to ignore the bits about "more likely than liberals", and "to hate Snowden's leaks", by trying to compare the Conservative numbers for liking versus disliking them. So, basically, you read the first half of a title, ignored the second half, and complained that it didn't match the figures.

Do you often stop reading halfway through a sentence? With supreme irony, you followed up your mistake with "But it's still funny how some folks lept up to conclude that it was true without even reading the first sentence apparently. " You didn't even make it all the way through the title before leaping to failure.

[Number23]

68. The fact that you consider ""Are you sure your headline matches your info?" to be complaining

explains this pointless little sub thread better than anything else.

I read the entire post and links and dared to ask the OP a question. Then followed up with links of my own that provided another point of view. Damn, you seem upset. Why so angry? Snowden love not going your way?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. I'm not angry; I'm trying to teach you basic math comprehension

How to read some sentences and figures and understand them. For instance, "conservatives significantly more likely than liberals" means you need to look at figures for conservatives and liberals.

You started this 'pointless sub-thread' because you couldn't understand a simple title. And you went on to say that other people weren't reading all the figures. It's amazing that you can not only get things wrong, but also claim that other people are getting it wrong. Here's some advice for you: if you think you've understood something, but that everyone else is wrong about it, check your understanding before saying in public that everyone else is wrong.

But I have corrected your mistakes, so I don't think the sub-thread is entirely pointless. You now know that the thread title is true.

[Number23]

71. I never said that everyone else was wrong. You are so gunning for a purposeless fight that you are

arguing with the pink elephant sitting across the room from you because you are certainly not arguing with anything I've actually said. I merely dared to ask the OP a question, that's what started this subthread. Not you or your hysterical and nasty responses. Me replying to the OP with a simple question and a couple of other links started it. You chose to leap in with all of this really pointless mess as if you are just terribly upset about something.

If you thought I'd misread something, you sure as hell could have found a less hyperventilating and personally insulting way to bring it to my attention. And judging from what I've seen of your posts overall but particularly now, you are not in a position to teach anyone here anything. And sure as hell not me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. No, educating you is not purposeless.

I answered your question, politely, and then, rather than saying something like "oh yes, now I read it again, I see the title is accurate", you tried to talk about "barely 10%", which had nothing to to with the title. Really, you should try reading what people type before embarrassing yourself further.

My responses aren't 'hysterical' or 'nasty'. They're just correct, while yours are consistently incorrect. And DU is a better place when mistakes like yours are corrected.

[Number23]

73. Asking a question is not making a mistake and you have not "educated" me on one damned thing

Half the shit you've accused me of doing is stuff you've pulled from your hiney. I've not complained. I've not said "everyone was wrong." I asked the OP a question based on my reading of their OP and you appear to have lost your shit over it. You have been aggressive since your first (unasked for) reply to me. Your arrogance is as misplaced as it is funny as hell and DU is a better place when people stop gunning for fights because their favorite ox, or in this place Russia-laden "freedom fighter," has been gored.

All you've done is show yet again how thin skinned and delicate Snowden's fans are here and make yourself look needlessly hateful in the process. And your insulting "I'm educating you" bullshit highlights that perfectly. But I guess if you think that your snarling idiocy is "educating" someone, that explains this exchange better than anything else I could say. You'll waste not one more second of my time.

[Aerows]

23. Those that love specific politicians

love those politicians more than they love the Constitution, children who depend on SNAP, veterans who were injured and find deplorable just about anything that makes the specific politician look like a wilted, damaged piece of lettuce on the plate of history.

Which said politician isn't, but any little smudge puts them in over drive to "protect" him. As though he needs their services. It's rather interesting how personally they take any criticism.

[Skittles]

28. the Tiger Beat crowd

it's temporary with makes it sheer hypocrisy

[stevenleser]

32. The only two people who are worshipped around here are Snowden and Greenwald.

Pick any of Obama's biggest supporters around here and they all have disagreed with him on something.

Not so with Greenwald and Snowden's biggest supporters. They all are even defending the massive fuckup of the other day.

THAT is blind, tiger beat kind of worship.

[Aerows]

33. You know exactly whom Skittles is talking about

It isn't about a violation of the Constitution, it is a problem that it occurred under a particular politician.

Don't be disingenuous, tell us what you *really* feel. DU2 archives are plain for all to see, so bear that in mind when you say that no one ever cared about this topic until Obama was in office.

[stevenleser]

34. And I know how wrong you and she are about this. Two weeks before Snowden's releases Obama

talked about this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

The conversation did not begin with Snowden. The President was already talking about it.

[Aerows]

37. You have been wrong about this from the very beginning

History will vindicate Mr. Snowden as a truth-teller. I know that you despise that it happened while President Obama is in office, but even after he leaves the office, the truth will still be the truth. Hold onto your hat - he will vacate the office in 2016, and you can go back to actually saying that unlawful, constitution-defying crimes are not good for the public.

[stevenleser]

44. I have been right from day one. Snowden is a sophomoric fool with delusions of grandeur.

None of what he said can be trusted.

History will have a very dim view of him and those who were deluded into supporting him.

[Aerows]

46. I'll wait

And I don't mind if you hold an opposite opinion. We will see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. That's laughable. Are you sure you linked to the right speech?

It's overwhelmingly about foreign policy, such as justifying drone strikes. All there is in that about domestic surveillance is the intention to expand it, but in a nice way:

Thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

No mention of the NSA at all. Nothing about taking the whole country's metadata. A content-free "strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board" mention, that doesn't say there are any problems, just that "our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension". The one concrete thing in there his wish is to get the authority to intercept new types of communication.

[stevenleser]

59. I'm 100% certain. How did you manage to miss these parts?

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

.
.
.
Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.

For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Yeah, those are the bits about torture and detention

It says surveillance was expanded under Bush, but doesn't have a problem with it. And then your excerpts talk about threats, and how to defeat terrorists. It says nothing about surveillance being a problem, or about decreasing it.

Your claim that this was Obama already talking about the massive surveillance of the American public by the NSA, ie the conversation Snowden's revelations started, is laughable.

[stevenleser]

65. That's not even a nice try at spinning this away. You are simply wrong. Best option is to admit it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. It's times like this that I remember you threw away your credibility ages ago

It's incredible you think that speech was about surveillance overreach. You think that highlighting passages that aren't about surveillance somehow proves your point. I cannot imagine how your mind works.

[stevenleser]

74. Credibility with who? You? Thanks, I'll survive just fine without it. nt

[Number23]

69. that one is curiously enraged about something, steven. Best to let him sleep whatever it is off

[stevenleser]

75. Amazing how they can deny what is written right in front of them and pretend it doesn't exist.

And then comment on MY credibility.

Wow, just wow.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Apparently, you and I have the same brain dysfunction

Because I see exactly what you do.

Strange.

[Doctor_J]

41. So the posts in favor of whistle blowing are "worship", while the BOG posts are not?

:heh:

[SwampG8r]

42. I will take you up on your challenge

I pick ProSense
Please show me the post she voices any criticism of this administration

[stevenleser]

45. Don't change my words. Read my post again. "they all have disagreed with him on something"

I will PM Prosense and have her respond.

[SwampG8r]

54. way to weasel word out of what you posted

Kind of what I would expect from a fox news channel contributor

[stevenleser]

57. Except Prosense responded and proved you wrong. I await your apology... nt

[ProSense]

55. LOL!

"I will take you up on your challenge
I pick ProSense
Please show me the post she voices any criticism of this administration"

Speaking of worship, show me one thread where I declared the President a "hero" and compared him to Paul Revere, Ghandi, the founding fathers and Jesus.

Snowden fans are famous for calling other people cultlists and other disparaging names, but they whine in the face of any criticism of Snowden and Greenwald. Post any criticism of Snowden that cannot be refuted, and the comments and threads declaring him a hero will follow.

His fans can't even accept when he, his lawyer and allies admit they fucked up.

Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509

FYI, I was an extremely vocal critic of Obama's choice for SOS (in fact, some tried to imply that I was a troll for being critical) and I disapproved of some of her actions under Obama.

I oppose certain policies, but that doesn't mean I have to take to DU and spin incessantly about how he's a tool.

I don't need to jump up and down and declare my opposition to Obama to please his detractors.

Whenver his detractors demand such a litmus test, it's clearly because they have no counter to certain arguments. I mean, this is a place for discussion, not lockstep agreement. If one can't accept that people are going to disagree with you on some things, then I suspect that resorting to the "prove to me to oppose Obama" silliness is all that person has left.

I opposed chained CPI, and I voted for Obama: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843557#post37

Most likely the majority of people here fall into that category.

[SwampG8r]

56. you must have put the wrong link in there

that one doesn't show you opposing cpi
its just more snowden propaganda

[stevenleser]

60. She says she opposed Obamas choice for SOS and opposed Chained CPI. That is two examples.

Can you give even one example where you disagreed with Snowden's and Greenwald's actions on Surveillance?

[SwampG8r]

78. nope

I agree with them

[AgingAmerican]

48. They have disagreed with him on something, once?

Really? I don't believe it. What did they disagree with? Favorite flavor of milkshake?

[stevenleser]

58. Who specifically are you talking about? Prosense just responded about one situation.

I have several disagreements on record.

Now the burden is on the Greenwald or Snowden supporters to indicate situations where they disagree.

[LeftishBrit]

79. OK - challenge taken

I support Snowden's whistleblowing, and emphatically disagree with his donating to the Ron Paul campaign.

[RobertEarl]

29. No doubt

It is conservatives who hate whistleblowers. The cons love their authoritarian masters. Anyone exposing the cons' masters, ends up enduring the cons' wrath.

We see a lot of that here on DU.

[GoneFishin]

31. "The Wrath of Cons" then?

[GoneFishin]

30. Simple addition.

"I insist on seeing things as they really are"
+ "Snowden revealed nothing we didn't already know"
-------------------------------------------------------
=

[TheKentuckian]

50. Based on observation, I'd have to agree. Our numbers would be even more stark if

a number of conservatives understood they were conservatives rather than being confused by the existence of reactionaries and radical regressives that act as a fun house mirror on their positions allowing some of them to place themselves as center or even liberal since anything other than racist and pushing theocracy gets you "center".

Add not being an anti tax zealot or willing to consider any sort of regulation on big business or the financial sector merits dawn near socialist.

[struggle4progress]

77. Meanwhile, back in the US:

Poll: Most think Edward Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus
January 22, 2014, 6:30 PM
CBS News
... Most Americans – 61 percent - think Snowden should have to stand trial in the United States for his actions. Far fewer – 23 percent - think he should be granted amnesty. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree on this as well ... This poll was conducted by telephone January 17-21, 2014 among 1,018 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points ...