Pew Poll on NSA Phone Tracking

[ProSense]

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

[DesMoinesDem]

1. Proof it's all partisan hypocrisy.

Unfortunately DU is ground zero for partisan hypocrites. No principles, just party loyalty. The OP being the worst offender.

[ProSense]

3. Yeah,

"Unfortunately DU is ground zero for partisan hypocrites. No principles, just party loyalty. The OP being the worst offender."

...being a self-righteous jerk who believes everyone else is stupid and doesn't understand what the fuck is going on is best!

[DesMoinesDem]

4. Need more blue links.

[ProSense]

5. Need more clowns. n/t

[DesMoinesDem]

9. You're the one that posts pictures of clowns.

At least the person using the ProSense account the other day was posting a lot of pictures of clowns. That may not have been you. It was the night shift.

[ProSense]

17. "At least the person using the ProSense account"

You shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

I mean, the screen should be able to punch back at stupid.

[cali]

56. you're losing it. I rather enjoy seeing that.

[cali]

55. Not really. You fill those large shoes so well

[jazzimov]

41. Yes, we do. DU used to have lots of them.

They help to substantiate a point. Links are AWESOME!

[reorg]

10. ah, the benefits of a two-party system

vis-à-vis one-party rule.

[Union Scribe]

18. Yeah, that 27% is very well represented here.

In all the hacky, personality-driven glory of convenient amnesia and propaganda.

[longship]

20. Maybe you didn't look at the Dem 2013 numbers vs the 2006 Dem numbers.

They went up in approval.

That's not good, IMHO.

So, what's the point of your post other than to hammer on another DUer with whom you apparently have some differences.

I see the OP like many other DUers might see it, as providing additional information on a topic which, from the number of threads here, seems to be an important one.

And those blue links? They provide additional information that many here may want. You don't need that info? Fine. Good for you. Then, why do you have to post anything in this thread other than to throw some chairs around the room. That's just childish and counter productive.

I think we'd all appreciate it if everybody took a more reasonable tone in their posts. People can disagree without being disagreeable. To do otherwise just makes DU suck.

[DesMoinesDem]

23. Uh, that's exactly what I was commenting on.

Democrats approval of surveillance went up dramatically from 2006 to 2013. Hence, my comment about partisan hypocrisy. I was commenting on the poll because that is what the thread is about. You must have read my post wrong, because is was very clear. And I'll always call people out for their partisan hypocrisy. It's a way to remind people about principles. If you want to take issue with something why not go after ProSense for the name calling. In just a few posts, they called me a jerk, self-righteous, a clown, and stupid, not to mention the strawman. Is that reasonable to you?

[longship]

29. That's reasonable, in part.

What is not reasonable is your sniping at another DUer for their style of posting, which -- by the way -- many DUers might find useful.

That is unacceptable from where I am sitting.

If you have a complaint about a post's content, make it. But damnit, be polite and address the content, not the DUer.

Stop throwing chairs. It makes DU suck.

If you don't like blue links, why do you come here at all? They're all fucking blue here.

For Christ sakes. Be reasonable.

[DesMoinesDem]

30. I'll continue to bring up those never ending lists of links.

If you think that is so unreasonable please put me on ignore.

[longship]

32. I don't put people on ignore.

And heaven will certainly fall if a DUer would want to add a couple of links to their OP?

That argument is without any logical basis. My only opinion is that you may not have a logical argument other than you do not like a specific DUer.

If so, you could ignore that DUer, or just not post in their threads, your choice.

You'd prefer to throw chairs into the thread?

I don't ignore DUers just because I disagree with them. Even those with whom I have had disagreements I find I can agree with on other issues.

But I have to let this go now.

Thank you for your responses.

[ProSense]

34. Maybe

"Democrats approval of surveillance went up dramatically from 2006 to 2013. Hence, my comment about partisan hypocrisy. I was commenting on the poll because that is what the thread is about. You must have read my post wrong, because is was very clear. And I'll always call people out for their partisan hypocrisy. It's a way to remind people about principles. If you want to take issue with something why not go after ProSense for the name calling. In just a few posts, they called me a jerk, self-righteous, a clown, and stupid, not to mention the strawman. Is that reasonable to you? "

...you can stop playing the victim long enough to remember the following from your very first comment in the thread.

"Unfortunately DU is ground zero for partisan hypocrites. No principles, just party loyalty. The OP being the worst offender."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2986298

You're also launching personal attacks even as you play victim.

I'd say, don't dish it out if you can't take it. You talk tough and self-righteous, and then when called on it, you whine.

[DesMoinesDem]

44. I'm not whining at all.

I was telling someone else if they are looking for something to complain about it should be baseless name calling. I rather like when you call people names. It proves you have no argument and makes you look worse than you already do.

[cali]

57. bwahahaha. you're the one who just told another poster that he/she was too stupid to

post and wished that he could get slugged by his/her computer. And YOU whine about others launching personal attempts.

cute.

[jazzimov]

42. So did the Independent numbers. nt

[adric mutelovic]

22. True. Partisan hypocricy was the most interesting part of this poll

Many follow a party, not a principle. "If my guy does it it's ok," seems to be their motto. This is true for both Republicans and Democrats.

[DirkGently]

46. Bingo. Complete reversal after Obama was elected.

Did the righteousness of widespread domestic spying somehow change overnight?

[BenzoDia]

53. That'd only be true of the NSA programs were actually equal.

[cali]

54. Proof of nothing. Or proof of what one wishes to see.

I don't have a very high opinion of American public opinion. After all, this is the same public that resoundingly supported the Iraq War.

[sadbear]

2. Who do you trust?

Regardless of this situation, I still trust President Obama multiple times more than I did bush. And that does have an impact on my opinion of all this. It does matter who's president at the time.

[magellan]

6. And that explains why more Dems are now okay with this

That isn't a good thing. If it's bad under a president you don't trust but okay under a president you do trust, then it's power NO president should have.

Which is why trust should never be part of the consideration.

[sadbear]

8. Of course.

If Jeb were elected in '16, I'd have a bigger problem with it than I do now. My take on these sorts of things tend to be nuanced, though, depending on the current circumstances.

[Skittles]

47. I..........are you for real?

[sadbear]

50. Why is that so hard to believe?

Nothing, and I do mean nothing, is black and white for me.

[tridim]

7. I also trust the most trustworthy politician in modern history.

No, I'm not talking about Rand Paul, poutragers.

[magellan]

13. Good for you

Get back to us when someone you don't trust has these powers at their disposal.

[Aerows]

14. My problem

Exactly.

[tridim]

16. That isn't even close to being on-topic.

But thanks for playing. Say hi to Rand. He loves you!

[magellan]

36. The fingers in the ears thing?

Not a good look on you. But you keep right on waving that IOKIADDI flag. It helps me to know who not to bother engaging with.

[Union Scribe]

19. And how about the next president?

By then it will be far too late to do anything.

[sadbear]

38. Well, yeah, Hillary is not trustworthy like that.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Our rights under the constitution should not

be conditioned on how much we trust the individual occupying the oval office at the time they are being violated.

[sadbear]

40. It's more nuanced than that.

Unfortunately, we don't get to define 'unreasonable'. Plus, those records they're searching don't belong to us. They belong to private companies. It's not quite so black and white. Just like in the 2nd Amendment, there's a lot of things our forefathers just couldn't have foreseen about the 21st Century when drafting the Bill of Rights.

[Ms. Toad]

43. You're right about not getting to define unreasonable

because the information that the records were being demanded was kept secret, and the court procedures by which unconstitutional laws are declared so are unavailable to us.

That doesn't make them constitutional or reasonable, and it does not alter the chilling effect that mashing all of the individual datapoints about each call made or received into patterns defining our associations has on our first amendment right of association.

Our government has an extremely long and egregious history suppressing or chilling our freedom of expression, the right to criticize the government. and the freedom of association which is is fundamental to the survival of democracy:
The Sedition Act of 1798
The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918
Palmer Raids
The Smith Act of 1940/Internment of Japanese Americans
House Un-American Activities Committee
COINTELPRO/FBI domestic surveillance of anti-war groups (including an organization I was a member of the governing body for)

This is just one more, in a long string, and is just as much of an anathema to civil liberties and justice as any of the others.

[struggle4progress]

11. Dunno. IIRC people have been polling that way for about as long as I can remember. But

I always suspect that the results depend somewhat on the questions asked, which are not always very informative

How are folk going to answer if asked

Would you prefer

A. Being blown up by terrorists
or
B. Having the government monitor your phone

or if asked

A. Being blown up by terrorists
or
B. Living under a brutal dictatorship

[Aerows]

15. Both suck

and stark reality is something that many don't want to look in the face, but I'd take option A before I'd take option B. That's just me.

[avaistheone1]

12. From this poll we should then extrapolate

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

???


Or that when the NSA or any of its contractors do it -
it is not illegal

??

[LWolf]

21. The public is awfully cavalier

about MY civil liberties. It looks like too many of the public are traitors to the constitution.

[Laelth]

27. All depends on who's running the executive branch.

The data show that Democrats don't mind Obama having the power; Republicans didn't mind Bush having the power. Highly partisan results.

On the Bill of Rights (the part of the Constitution designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority), I think our leaders ought to listen to the minority in both cases. In other words, no spying. The people out of power always hate it.

-Laelth

[LWolf]

33. I mind any of them having that power. nt

[Laelth]

48. Me too, honestly. n/t

-Laelth

[magellan]

37. Yep, party loyalty trumps common sense and reason.

I guess it's true, most people do prefer authoritarianism. As long as it's their guy in power.

[Laelth]

49. Yes, for reasons I can not understand.

Your observation, while sad, appears to be true.

-Laelth

[DCBob]

24. Not surprising at all..

in fact, I suspect the there would be even higher approval had the media not gone all apeshit over the Greenwald "bombshell".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. So? Does that make it right?

[Laelth]

26. Useful data, certainly.

Still, I'd prefer it if Democrats didn't always pay so much attention to polls, especially when we're talking about the Constitution. Some things are more important that the transient whims of the electorate.

-Laelth

[Number23]

31. THIS is the truth of the matter. And THIS is how we winded up with all of the mess to begin with

All of the hollering, screaming and frothing about how much certain cretinous individuals here hate this president and Obama=Bush ain't gonna change a damn thing. AMERICANS SUPPORT SURVEILLANCE if they think it will protect them.

The Washington Post, the paper that outed the NSA surveillance story to begin with, has even acknowledged that this will probably not affect the president much. The people who will fight him on this will be the ones who have fought him on EVERYTHING else because the truth of the matter is that this type of surveillance enjoys broad BI-PARTISAN support. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/07/why-the-nsa-revelations-arent-like-the-irs-scandal-or-benghazi-for-obama/

This is what happens when the American people handed over their rights in fear after 9/11. Screaming at the man who inherited this crap and has actually made things slightly better ain't gonna change a damn thing. The program is disturbing and I think a very easy case could be made that it is immoral, but it is NOT illegal, it is WIDELY supported by the American public and both houses of Congress, and it damn sure is NOT un-Constitutional no matter how many cretins scream otherwise.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

35. Looks like a downward trend in support...

Wonder what it'll be next year

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. omg

[Ms. Toad]

45. I'm sure the internment of the Japanese

during World War II, the HUAC, the COINTELPRO activities of the FBI in the 60s, and any number of other similar activities equally chilling on speech and association would poll just as well.

[markiv]

51. say their no longer anonymous poll

"do you oppose your masters?"

[markiv]

52. I'm glad that Pew is spending their credibility on this one

because people will question it

Pew polls always say 'the little pople like what the powers that be are doing', more or less