Try the political quiz

593 Replies

@63ZKR66Republicanfrom North Carolina  answered…12mos

@9XPQVNRRepublican from Georgia answered…2 days

No, and someone should teach the federal government about the Bill of Rights (specifically the 4th Amendment).

@9XPPW69Independent from Mississippi answered…2 days

yes but only if the government morals are correct and not corrupt

@9XD4PSVLibertarian from Missouri answered…2wks

@9X6W6LLDemocrat from Texas answered…3wks

They should be allowed to monitor foreign financial transactions but not detaining and deporting immigrants just because they're suspicious. Most people here are racist and would definitely take advantage of that.

@9WT3HBPWomen’s Equality from South Carolina answered…1mo

No, while I support using video surveillance in public spaces, Americans should not have to give up personal liberties in our private life.

@6CYGGL2Constitutionfrom Washington  answered…12mos

It has been the excuse to enforce the UN Global agenda. 9.11 was an inside job. Create the fear and terror, then work to destroy the country to the point they can call in UN "peacekeepers" who have no affiliation other than to the UN, and would work for their richest elite - not to help us.

@5VYWXFTLibertarianfrom Michigan  answered…12mos

No. I understand the idea, and I'm sure many terrorist acts have been prevented because of survelience. However, we cannot give up our individual freedoms in order to feel protected. You didn't see this scale of "American Infidel" in the past. We were a better country before. We were proud of our country (on the large scale) and there was such a thing as the American Dream. We have deterriorated as a country. There is no "American Dream" unless you county being materialistic, judgemental, and constantly offended. During World War II people gave up luxuries in order to support their country, even when their husbands/sons/brothers/friends were sent fighting. While there is still military support, it is not the same. It is not true support, but rather a support with a side of guilt and disgust to those that oppose it.

@5RCGHLLRepublicanfrom California  answered…12mos

No, many parts of it including section 215 completely undermine the constitutional rights of U.S citizens

@5T5LGY9Democratfrom Oregon  answered…12mos

Well... Not really. They've gone too far with it. I do support placing cameras everywhere and monitoring what people do in public. Are 2 guys carrying satchel charges to the stands of the Boston Marathon? Gosh, maybe that's a problem. Did an unattended bag explode? Gosh, maybe we can see who put it there before it blew up... Is someone mugging your mother in front of the A&P? Gosh, maybe we could alert the cop on the next block...

@5T4VZ8QRepublicanfrom New York  answered…12mos

With a warrant for any American citizen. Must have an individualized warrant. Mass survallence on Islamic citizens. Ban refugees for 2 years. Push a propaganda campaign for women's rights in the Middle East and stop lying about Islam for political gain or political correctness

@5TV5LPCGreenfrom Maryland  answered…12mos

I have a brown skin. Anytime I travel on a plane, I have to endure extra security procedures. I am not middle-eastern, I am an all-American racial mix. Think about that.

@5XJ32KLRepublicanfrom Vermont  answered…12mos

Yes, but with sunset provision requiring Congressional approval every 2 years.

@5S3TZQFRepublicanfrom Georgia  answered…12mos

The Patriot Act should be subjected to a constitutional test as should be all legislation. It should have a sunset clause.

@5RD54QQDemocratfrom Indiana  answered…12mos

Yes, but do away with detainment and deportation because it violates due process.

@5RV7C4LRepublicanfrom Illinois  answered…12mos

Absolutely not this gives big government too much power to spy and pry into citizens private lives. There doesn't need to be a patriot act for the government to protect itself and its citizens. It's called have a pair of balls and let Old Glory fly.

@Alan-RamsayRepublicanfrom Maryland  answered…1yr

Only if the scope of the government’s powers is limited and strict laws are passed prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant.

@9JRHH3SWomen’s Equality from California answered…1yr

@9JBL47NAmerican Solidarity from Utah answered…1yr

Yes, but the sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad. And pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant

@9HY36Z2Socialist from New York answered…1yr

@9HT8PRSPeace and Freedom from Illinois answered…1yr

It is outdated and should at least be updated to reflect current sentiment and national security needs.

@9HRTGQ4Republican from Nevada answered…1yr

It’s a necessary evil. We need to elect better personnel, and reduce bureaucracy.

@9HDMV6TVeteran from North Carolina answered…1yr

Yes, but only be able to take up actions against the suspects if they turn out to be a terrorist, and not be able to detain them forever just in case.

@ray522Democrat from New York answered…1yr

Evidence must be provided, innocent people should not be targeted purely for their race or religion.

@9FDV39HVeteran from Kentucky answered…1yr

I oppose any and all government surveillance, as it infringes upon the fourth amendment. Repeal the patriot act and hold the fed accountable for breaking the highest law of the land.

@9TX9M4MGreen from Illinois answered…5mos

No. Its too broad in the powers available. limit the scope of the government’s powers so they cant utilize wiretapping, and limit the surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorist activities.

@9TN6LB2Peace and Freedom from Texas answered…6mos

Yes, but immigrants should only be detained and deported if the act of terrorism is confirmed

@9THNJ72Democrat from North Carolina answered…6mos

Yes as long as there is a probable cause for detaining and deporting and not just because.

@9TGCVBSLibertarian from Florida answered…6mos

@9SBQPN4Republican from Texas answered…8mos

Yes, but those abuse should be immediately pulled from office and automatically investigated and tried. As soon as a judge feels they were not fully informed, these events would be triggered.

@9S7FL3TRepublican from Ohio answered…8mos

It is unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately. Any American who has had their rights violated due to this act must be paid reparations.

@9S289K4Independent from Illinois answered…8mos

Yes, but the government must have a warrant for this kind of surveillance

@9RX2G78Democrat from Missouri answered…8mos

Yes and no: A government must be able to monitor what is going on, but it must be done in good faith. The sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad, so we should require probable cause and a warrant for further, more detailed and specific surveillance, but then again, even granting broad surveillance powers without the ability to unilaterally act on said surveillance is a slippery slope in of itself. A civilian oversight & advisory board should be established. I think we all want our government to have the ability to prevent terrorist attacks, both domestic & foreign, but we need an independent party to ensure that such powers granted aren’t being abused, and are being executed in good faith. I’m a little torn.

@9RQ269DAmerican from Tennessee answered…9mos

Only when it comes to terrorists and drug cartels, not political pursuit.

@9QYKXCDSocialist from South Carolina answered…10mos

No, but there should be CCTV cameras across the nation, and we should have moved on from 9/11 by 2006.

@madysen21Peace and Freedom from Utah answered…10mos

I would if the NSA actually had any evidence that surveillance is effective

@9PTVZ5RWomen’s Equalityfrom Maine  answered…12mos

@9PSKN9NRepublican from Minnesota answered…12mos

No, times and needs havechange and the act should be revised or removed

@9PR3WB4Peace and Freedom from Illinois answered…12mos

Intelligence on terrorist acts should be done in a more different way, that is effective, and doesn't entirely snoop into other country's private information, causing a disagreement between the country and the U.S.

@Jordan-BallRepublican from Arizona answered…12mos

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...