Domestic Surveillance

[carlfense]

A poll released on Monday by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post found a partisan shift in the way Americans view the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance programs. In the survey, slightly more Democrats than Republicans said they found it acceptable for the N.S.A. to track Americans’ phone records and e-mails if the goal is to prevent terrorism. By comparison, when Pew Research asked a similar question in 2006, Republicans were about twice as likely as Democrats to support the N.S.A.’s activities.

​

The poll is a reminder that many Americans do not hold especially firm views on some issues and instead may adapt them depending on which party controls the executive branch. When it comes to domestic surveillance, a considerable number of Democrats seem willing to support actions under President Obama that they deemed unacceptable under George W. Bush, while some Republicans have shifted in the opposite direction.

[BigRedBuster]

All I know is that I would hate to be the one making the decisions on what needs done to keep the American public safe. Constitutional rights are extremely important. But, so is the safety of the public. To do that, the government will need to have secrets as to what exactly they do. There will need to be people with security clearance that the government can trust. But, the public needs to be able to trust them too.

 

HOWEVER, that power can easily be abused and it's really bad when that is abused.

 

I think this is where this graph comes in. It is normal for people to trust other people that have the same political views as them more than people who have opposite views.

[carlfense]

I think this is where this graph comes in. It is normal for people to trust other people that have the same political views as them more than people who have opposite views.

Huh? If this is correct then why does the graph show so many conservatives voting in favor of the Patriot Act when Obama is in office? I'm not saying that your comment is totally wrong but I'm confused as to how you think the graph supports your interpretation.

[Junior]

No shock there, though plenty of big Republicans have said they support the NSA surveillance.

[BigRedBuster]

I think this is where this graph comes in. It is normal for people to trust other people that have the same political views as them more than people who have opposite views.

Huh? If this is correct then why does the graph show so many conservatives voting in favor of the Patriot Act when Obama is in office? I'm not saying that your comment is totally wrong but I'm confused as to how you think the graph supports your interpretation.

 

 

I was relating the second paragraph in your quote where you bolded part of it with the graph itself.

[carlfense]

I think this is where this graph comes in. It is normal for people to trust other people that have the same political views as them more than people who have opposite views.

Huh? If this is correct then why does the graph show so many conservatives voting in favor of the Patriot Act when Obama is in office? I'm not saying that your comment is totally wrong but I'm confused as to how you think the graph supports your interpretation.

 

 

I was relating the second paragraph in your quote where you bolded part of it with the graph itself.

. . . but it looks like the majority of conservatives voted "yes" in favor of the Patriot Act when Pres. Obama was in office and most liberals voted "no" against the Patriot Act when Pres. Obama was in office. Do you think that supports the bolded portion of the OP?

[Whistlebritches]

I think it's more a change in the acceptance of surveillance in general more than a change in who is doing it. People used to freak out about video cameras in public places and now it's pretty common.

[BigRedBuster]

Possibly I am misinterpreting what you originally posted.

 

The bolder part implies that if someone is in the White house that a person disagrees with politically, they tend to disagree with them on the same issue that they might agree to with someone in office that you agree with politically.

 

Then, looking at the graph, there are both yellow and black on both sides (admittedly there are more yellow on the right than left). I took that as the black on the right were new since Obama was in office and the yellow on the left are new since Obama was in office.

[carlfense]

Possibly I am misinterpreting what you originally posted.

 

The bolder part implies that if someone is in the White house that a person disagrees with politically, they tend to disagree with them on the same issue that they might agree to with someone in office that you agree with politically.

 

Then, looking at the graph, there are both yellow and black on both sides (admittedly there are more yellow on the right than left). I took that as the black on the right were new since Obama was in office and the yellow on the left are new since Obama was in office.

Gotcha.

[rawhide]

I've had the same opinion of Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi; and who the POTUS was never entered into the equation. But my opinion on other members of Congress has changed. Of course, their stance on some key issues has changed also.

 

People's opinions can change on a variety of issues. Coincidence??? Are there other factors to include besides who the Prez is or was???

 

9/11.......Sandy Hook.........politicians were flip floppin' around like tuna on the deck. Jus like Pappy O'Daniels:

 

http://www.hark.com/clips/grcggmpmct-yeah-well-youll-be-laughing-out-the-other-side-of-your-face-come-november

[JJ Husker]

It would be interesting to see that same graph from 2006. What I think I get from this is generally conservatives are ok with the Patriot Act but moreso under Bush than under Obama. And, liberals are generally not ok with the Act but many moved to being ok with it under Obama. No real earth shattering revelations here. Personally I felt a little more comfortable with the Patriot Act when Bush was in the WH than I do now. I think this comes from a persons perceived trust in the executive branch. i.e. If Bush were to run amuck with PA provisions, I feel it likely would be only to help catch more terrorists (which I don't have a problem with). However, if Obama were to also run amuck with it, I feel it would be more likely to be used for nefarious reasons much like the IRS scrutinizing conservatives more than liberals etc. It is a bit of a head scratcher though why so many conservatives still support it. I would think more would've changed to "no" than apparently did. It also seems like more liberals would've changed to "yes". A good example (for this issue anyway) is Bill Maher. When Bush was Pres, he was absolutely livid about the PA. Recently I watched his show *regrets it* and he was doing nothing but defending the same crap for Obama that he would go off the rails about 6 years ago.

[knapplc]

Personally I felt a little more comfortable with the Patriot Act when Bush was in the WH than I do now. I think this comes from a persons perceived trust in the executive branch. i.e. If Bush were to run amuck with PA provisions, I feel it likely would be only to help catch more terrorists (which I don't have a problem with). However, if Obama were to also run amuck with it, I feel it would be more likely to be used for nefarious reasons much like the IRS scrutinizing conservatives more than liberals etc.

 

The big concern I have isn't so much Bush and/or Obama (although neither should have this power), but President 2016, President 2020, President 2024, etc. Who will that be? What will they do with such powers? It's scary to think that we're giving power like that to the executive branch in perpetuity when we have no idea how it'll be used, and we have no real way to make them stop using it.

 

We, the citizens, are no longer being served by our government. We serve the government, they have taken the reins, and we must do what they say or be jailed. When I can be jailed as an Enemy Combatant, without trial or recourse to the law, for having written that last sentence, then you know something is utterly wrong with this picture.

[carlfense]

Personally I felt a little more comfortable with the Patriot Act when Bush was in the WH than I do now. I think this comes from a persons perceived trust in the executive branch. i.e. If Bush were to run amuck with PA provisions, I feel it likely would be only to help catch more terrorists (which I don't have a problem with). However, if Obama were to also run amuck with it, I feel it would be more likely to be used for nefarious reasons much like the IRS scrutinizing conservatives more than liberals etc.

 

The big concern I have isn't so much Bush and/or Obama (although neither should have this power), but President 2016, President 2020, President 2024, etc. Who will that be? What will they do with such powers? It's scary to think that we're giving power like that to the executive branch in perpetuity when we have no idea how it'll be used, and we have no real way to make them stop using it.

 

We, the citizens, are no longer being served by our government. We serve the government, they have taken the reins, and we must do what they say or be jailed. When I can be jailed as an Enemy Combatant, without trial or recourse to the law, for having written that last sentence, then you know something is utterly wrong with this picture.

+1

[gobiggergoredder]

Couldn't you just as easily ask why those that appeared to be outraged at one point no longer appear to be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXi95f_UoM

[JJ Husker]

 

The big concern I have isn't so much Bush and/or Obama (although neither should have this power), but President 2016, President 2020, President 2024, etc. Who will that be? What will they do with such powers? It's scary to think that we're giving power like that to the executive branch in perpetuity when we have no idea how it'll be used, and we have no real way to make them stop using it.

 

We, the citizens, are no longer being served by our government. We serve the government, they have taken the reins, and we must do what they say or be jailed. When I can be jailed as an Enemy Combatant, without trial or recourse to the law, for having written that last sentence, then you know something is utterly wrong with this picture.

 

Of course you are right. That is the bigger picture and deeper issue. The slow erosion (which has not seemed all that slow recently) of our rights and freedom. That is one of the main reasons I am not enthused with the government expanding the roles of who they take care of and who is dependent upon them. It becomes way too easy for those who are already dependent to accept the government controlling more and more of their life.