It is now officially an "us or them" situation. Our halls of power are not interested in compromise. They've made it abundantly clear with the constant refrain given via tweets and Facebook comments over the last two months: "You lost snowflake. So suck it up, buttercup!"
-40hz
You may be right, but your reaction to IainB's comment is making the situation *worse*.
There are many of us who were horrified by both major candidates (witness the "never Trump" movement"), and I think that for many of such people, we'd *like* to be united on the side that supports Snowden. But as IainB demonstrates, trying to tie that support to support of the "blue team" really does keep many of us away. That's driving a wedge deeper, preventing those of us who disliked *both* the status quo
and Trump, from uniting under a common flag.
40hz - your reply seems to assume that we must maintain the current boxes that each tribe wants to draw, and that any resolution must be on those terms: one tribe must defeat the other. I'd much rather see the definition of those boxes be changed significantly, so that I can support the kind of human rights that Snowden's supporters favor, while at the same time working against much of the crap that has become institutionalized in Washington today. I'd like to get there without Trump, but I also want to get there without Clinton - I want a new tribe that can take the best ideas from both.
But IainB's quote shows that there's a significant faction who won't have it that way, we must keep the existing tribal structures, and if we're not with them we must be against them.