This is pretty fucked up

[Stinky The Clown]

What might account for the shift?

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. Both with the data you're posting, and anecdotally

It's becoming more clear to me that some people don't have principles that they hold more important than political considerations. And I'm very political, but I know a trump suit when i see it.

[boston bean]

7. data, did you say data!?

That was a poll, not data!!!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. If I'm not mistaken, we're on the same side with this stuff

But yes, I meant data--polling data if you'd prefer. I understand polls can be skewed, but it's pretty clear that many Democrats aren't nearly as opposed to spying as they claimed to be when Bush was in office.

[boston bean]

13. It was a joke.

Sorry.. I never could deliver a good punch line.

[Buzz Clik]

39. A poll is data.

EDIT: reading your next response, I may be misinterpreting your comment.

[NoOneMan]

2. Amazing!

And this is an example of the fallacy "lesser of two evils". Our paragon of virtue may of led good minds astray, and finally a majority support this. A majority. Sleight of hand.

[still_one]

3. Not at all. Some represent just political ideology, however, taking the poll a valid, it may not

represent too much of a change. A lot of the Democrats polled may have declared themselves as independents.

I guess anyone who doesn't align with Democratic or Republican is Independent?

[MotherPetrie]

4. Because of the mind set that it's okaaaaaaaaaaaaay when *MyPresident* does it.

Ugh.

[Fumesucker]

5. It's all legal like with oversite and everything now

Tangelos and cumquats.

[Llewlladdwr]

6. All good when our team does it. nt

[JaneyVee]

8. Maybe stronger oversight of the NSA program and use of a judicial system?

[Marrah_G]

9. disturbing

[NoOneMan]

10. BTW, Thats leadership!

Sorta makes all the "votes aren't there", "he's not God" or "Americans don't support it" arguments die. That man can move mountains of opinion.


If he wants to.

[Bonobo]

12. Bare-Naked Hypocrisy. Rec. nt

[DCKit]

36. No, they lied.

The poll is BS. No way in hell that 64% of Dems would be for being spied upon.

Jeebus, take the temperature here on DU. Aside from the paid apologists, everyone is furious.

[Buzz Clik]

40. Are you under the impression that DU is representative of the Democrats in the US?

Please tell me you forgot your sarcasm icon.

[antigone382]

50. This is the Pew Research Center. They are very reputable, and unlikely to lie for political reasons.

That said, it is important to qualify the limits of statistics such as these. I doubt these polls are sampling the exact same people, and it is important to remember that there will be some variation in the percentages each time, due to chance alone rather than some meaningful change. I would like to see the size of the samples in both cases, as well as a t-test (a statistical equation based on probability theory) to determine how significant these differences really are. I don't doubt that at least some of the differences are well beyond the margin of error, particularly among the Democrats and Republicans. For independents however, the difference may be only slightly outside the margin of error, or even within it (typically the margin of error is about 3 percentage points, so you have to add or subtract that from each figure; sometimes it is a little higher).

[JI7]

14. there was good reason not to trust Bush , but republicans just don't like a black guy

being president.

[Buzz Clik]

41. +1

[grasswire]

15. frog in the pot of water analogy?

Isn't that it?

[treestar]

16. It shows how partisan people can be

though I don't think the respondents necessarily knew much about the surveillance.

[geek tragedy]

17. The Bush program was actually criminal/illegal.

Also, people are used to having their entire lives documented on social media.

[Bonobo]

21. .

[rhett o rick]

24. Let's look at your arguments one at a time.

"The Bush program was actually criminal/illegal." You are insinuating that Pres Obama's "program" is legal. Without investigating? Without paying any attention to those that say otherwise? Let me remind you that Clapper is a Bush guy as are a lot of Pres Obama's close advisers. Clapper and the rest didnt change their ideologies when the switched from Team Bush to Team Obama. In fact there are some, including the author of the Patriot Act that are saying the the current president is taking the Patriot Act farther than the Bush Gang ever imagined. If you honestly think that the current NSA surveillance program is Constitutional, you are living in Denial Land.

Your second argument is almost too comical to discuss. "people are used to having their entire lives documented on social media." Please, I bet only a small fraction, maybe those under the age of 45 use "social media". And to insinuate that because people do us social media they dont deserve privacy from the NSA is incredible.

[geek tragedy]

26. Every indication is that the Obama admin hasn't violated Congressional statutes.

Bush's program was so illegal they had to rewrite the statute in order for it to continue, as well as offering retroactive immunity to telecoms for cooperating.

"Denial Land" is a place where people on DU (or Free Republic) etc decide whether something is constitutional instead if the SCOTUS.

US and Canada have around 200 million Facebook users. Considering that wouldn't include children or those who don't use the Internet, a very high percentage of those who would get caught up in the NSA programs are going to be Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc users.

[rhett o rick]

27. Bush's spying program was illegal so they made it legal so now

when Obama uses the same fucking program, at least it's legal. That's incredible.

Denial Land is where conservatives go when someone points out that their beloved authoritarian leaders dont have any fucking clothes on.

[geek tragedy]

28. Do you contend that whether the President is obeying the law is a trivial

consideration?

I have not expressed an opinion on the NSA program that fits your snide remark, so your reach exceeds your grasp.

[rhett o rick]

30. You said that the Bush spying program was illegal so they rewrote the law to make it legal.

That means that what he did that was illegal is now legal. Therefore Obama is doing the same thing Bush did but now it's legal. But it's still the same spying that Bush did. Neither are acceptable and both are violating the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

32. We're discussing why public opinion may have moved.

It would seem silly to suggest that either partisanship or the legality of the President's conduct has nothing to do with it.

There is certainly cause for great concern re: the NSA program, and if it's constitutional that reflects a need to amend the constitution.

[rhett o rick]

33. Amend the Constitution to make surveillance of citizens legal? Is that what you want?

Do you think that life would be safer under fascistic control?

[geek tragedy]

34. No, amend the constitution so that it addresses topics it doesn't now.

The fourth amendment doesn't protect telecom meta data as it is currently drafted. Metadata doesn't belong to the customer.

While they're at it, they can draft a right to privacy that somehow was never included.

[rhett o rick]

35. How about a law stating that metadata does belong to the customer.

I do agree with getting the right to privacy included. But we cant even agree on what that means.

[geek tragedy]

47. I've been pushing the idea that metadata/records should be the legal property

of the customer.

That solves a lot of problems, actually.

[rhett o rick]

31. You said that the Bush spying program was illegal so they rewrote the law to make it legal.

That means that what he did that was illegal is now legal. Therefore Obama is doing the same thing Bush did but now it's legal. But it's still the same spying that Bush did. Neither are acceptable and both are violating the Constitution.

My crack about Denial Village refers to those that dont want to know about any possible violations of our Constitution. They will try to ridicule anyone that wants to discuss the issue. They will disparage all whistle-blowers that dare infringe on their right to deny.

[Buzz Clik]

48. "current president is taking the Patriot Act farther than the Bush Gang ever imagined" Bullshit.

Any Bush appointee who said that is a lying sack of shit.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Actually, not. Bush may have received some bad advice from his legal counsel...

... but he followed almost all the rules.

[geek tragedy]

46. Say wha?

The telecoms had to get retroactive immunity for complying with Bush's requests.

Bush didn't get bad legal advice--he got a "get out of jail free" card just like he got on torture.

[Buzz Clik]

49. We are trying to simplify this far too much.

The legalities are complicated, and if you remember anything from the Bush era then you should remember that he followed just enough protocol to keep himself and the telecoms out of trouble.

He gave immunity to the telecoms to avoid compromising the data during petty lawsuits.

Remember more. Do more research. It's really complicated, not a simple matter of black and white.

[geek tragedy]

51. He didn't give the telecoms immunity--Congress did.

Bush's legal team were fiction writers.

[Cerridwen]

18. Orwell was a(n) historian. Not a prophet.

"We" keep repeating our history learning none of the lessons of history. "We" would rather defend our tribe rather than stick to our principles. It is the downfall of "man"kind. It's easier to go along to get along.

Thanks for the fish.

[G_j]

19. is there any solid ground to stand on anymore?

somebody tell me what it's all about if its not about our values?

Can't wait to hear what's folks have to say if the Keystone pipeline comes about!

[BainsBane]

20. It proves that Americans are hypocrites

[Buzz Clik]

43. I think it shows that we tend not to think very deeply on issues.

We react to prevailing opinion.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Republicans woke up after years of sleeping

[Buzz Clik]

45. No. They simply oppose Obama and the Dems. No waking. No thinking.

[Progressive dog]

23. You do know that it wasn't the same question.

If you are interested, you might want to go to the Pew site to see the difference in the questions. It isn't trivial.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Or it is

Depends on the argument one is making.

Have a swell day.

[Warpy]

25. It just means a lot of simple souls out there trust their own party

with potentially catastrophic power but they've got no use for those bums you elect, they'll do their worst every time.

Of course, I do trust a constitutional scholar a bit more than I trust a swaggering fake cowboy who squeaked through biz school with a legacy's grading curve, but not by much. I trust the former as far as I can throw a spinet piano by its pedals. I trusted the latter as far as I could throw a concert grand by one leg.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. What accounts for the shift?

For GOPers: The black guy in the White House.
For Democrats: The black guy in the White House with the D after his name.

Pretty simply, really.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. Scary statistics.

I fear for our country.

[markiv]

44. same principal as 'possession is 9/10ths the law'

you only have to force someone to experience something for a while, and then they accept it as 'normal'

[MADem]

52. I have been saying--over and over--that this is not breaking along party lines.

The CATO Institute crew (that Koch bunch) are vociferously pounding the SNOWDEN-HERO drum, as are some of the FauxSnooze people. And liberal icon Al Franken (who actually took the PRISM briefing, unlike some of his peers in the Senate) is on the other side of the fence with regard to citizen protection.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/210862561.html
Issues of national security cross party lines. They aren't like issues that involve safety nets for children and the elderly; one can pretty much guarantee that Dems favor those and the GOP prefer the "bootstraps" methods.