(03-18-2022, 08:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Um.............. Not exactly:
Isn't this exactly what he is saying? If 68% of Republicans would stay and fight, then 32% of them are fleeing (100-68=32). Then we have 40% of Democrats who wouldn't flee. If these numbers are accurate over the course of entire party, the fighting strength between registered Democrats and Republicans is about 20%.
I think what Nately isn't accounting for is the third option that this poll apparently accounts for, which I would guess is "undecided". If 52% of Democrats would leave and 40% would fight, what are the other 8% doing? Same thing goes for the Republicans (68% fighting, 25% fleeing), what are the final 7% doing? Regardless, I don't think your post really challenges anything regarding what Nately said.
(03-18-2022, 08:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Um.............. Not exactly:
But when analyzed on a partisan basis, a majority of Republicans and independents — 68 percent and 57 percent, respectively — said they'd stay and fight, while 52 percent of Democrats said they'd opt to leave.
Right, so 3.2 in 10 republicans wouldn't stay and 3.8 democrats out of 10 would...isn't that what I said? Are we going to debate over what 0.2 of a person is?
Anyways, we aren't getting invaded like Normandy, so I assure you when we do get invaded I'll turn into Rambo (the version of him that gleefully kills everyone, not the one who was originally supposed to represent mistreated and defeated veterans) and mow 'em all down.
Also, if a lion walks into the room with me within the next 10 minutes I'll totally kick its ass.
(03-18-2022, 09:16 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Isn't this exactly what he is saying? If 68% of Republicans would stay and fight, then 32% of them are fleeing (100-68=32). Then we have 40% of Democrats who wouldn't flee. If these numbers are accurate over the course of entire party, the fighting strength between registered Democrats and Republicans is about 20%.
Let's be honest...100% of republicans would fight and die like heroes and 100% of democrats would piss their pants and flee in terror towards the nearest gay bath house, abortion clinic, or welfare office.
I mean, I imagine the people polled were the same folks who turned tail and ran like hell as soon as the police showed up to the Capitol. Everyone is a badass until the bullets start flying.
(03-16-2022, 01:19 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I am a registered Democrat. I would stay and fight. In this hypothetical scenario, I would guess that if the mainland U.S. was invaded then the entire world would be in an upheaval. However, just for the sake of answering the question as it is, I would still stay and fight even if the rest of the world wasn't in turmoil. I do have some patriotism while acknowledging shortcomings of the country. The root of this feeling is difficult to explain, but I wouldn't feel right with myself if I fled. It would feel like I am going against my own morals and that would be a tough pill for me to swallow.
I agree if the mainland US is being invaded to the point of stay and fight or run and hide I'm not sure there would be many places to run and hide at that point.
(03-16-2022, 08:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't answer for me personally. In my current state I would do what I could to help any defensive effort. I would be a battlefield liability in my current physical condition, but trying to assist in logistics or something would be my bag. Obviously you don't want to run around unarmed in a war zone regardless of your role, and I wouldn't have any problem slinging my AR on and packing a sidearm for such an occasion. I just know that my place would not be actively seeking engagements with the enemy.
"Defending" your country doesn't necessarily mean running around with a rifle and fighting on the front lines. It takes a lot of people to let those who are seeking engagements able to keep doing so. 7:1 was the support-to-combat ratio I was always told. Just look at how shitty Russia's logistics have been and the results of that.
(03-16-2022, 09:54 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I were to guess... I'm going to say the psychology points to the "fish in a barrel" situation. There are many Dems are packed into large cities and may feel an aggressor could cut off necessities or decimate large swaths of the city efficiently. The R's probably feel more confident in evading and retaliating with large portions of them populating rural areas that have much more cover and resources for survival. I know most of the people in my area would scream "Wolverines !" and chuckle somewhat maniacally as they skip towards the woodline.
Yeah, I am probably rural enough that I don't know if I would actually be in a better situation by trying to leave even if I entertained the idea. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a city and I can imagine it would be harder to just go live a rural life if you've never known it and you don't know anyone/anywhere out there. There's something to be said about living in an area where there's less (obviously not no, but less) outside dependency on starving to death, freezing to death, or obtaining potable water.
(03-17-2022, 09:55 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Americans are pretty bizarre. We'd defend our country to the death if some one invaded but we're also mulling over the value of having a civil war and overthrowing our own government at the moment.
Any invading force is going to be smart enough to play to one side of our divided populace and hamstring our defense immediately.
If 7 of 10 Republicans are determined to defend this county, I'm getting them on my side before I invade. The playbook of how to charm them has been written. We are here to make right the 2020 election and save you from your communist government.
Isn't that the "I can hit my brother, but if you hit my brother, I am going to have to kick your ass" situation? Lol
Not sure it matters WHAT the message is so long as it comes from an outsider.
(03-22-2022, 05:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "Defending" your country doesn't necessarily mean running around with a rifle and fighting on the front lines. It takes a lot of people to let those who are seeking engagements able to keep doing so. 7:1 was the support-to-combat ratio I was always told. Just look at how shitty Russia's logistics have been and the results of that.
Yeah, I am probably rural enough that I don't know if I would actually be in a better situation by trying to leave even if I entertained the idea. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a city and I can imagine it would be harder to just go live a rural life if you've never known it and you don't know anyone/anywhere out there. There's something to be said about living in an area where there's less (obviously not no, but less) outside dependency on starving to death, freezing to death, or obtaining potable water.
Isn't that the "I can hit my brother, but if you hit my brother, I am going to have to kick your ass" situation? Lol
Not sure it matters WHAT the message is so long as it comes from an outsider.
The message thay we have a corrupt government that illegally seized power and needs to be overthrown is coming from within the country. This stuff has gone mainstream.
All you need is Tucker Carlson to put on a fake confused act wondering why the media is so intent on portraying our foreign allies in liberation as an invading force.
(03-23-2022, 08:58 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The message thay we have a corrupt government that illegally seized power and needs to be overthrown is coming from within the country. This stuff has gone mainstream.
All you need is Tucker Carlson to put on a fake confused act wondering why the media is so intent on portraying our foreign allies in liberation as an invading force.
US intelligence (and they've been pretty spot on thus far) believe that Putin wanted to invade, depose Zelenskyy and install former president Yanukovych.
Something tells me that a not insignificant amount US citizens would be receptive to that.
Wow, I am pleased to see that not only has this thread stayed on topic, but that is was largely discussed logically. With some notable exceptions of course. I would agree that there are certainly a sizeable contingent that would find their actions differing from their words, in both directions, should this event actually occur. I would also agree with the results in general, though. I do think those leaning conservative are more likely to fight, but I don't think that's especially surprising given historical precedent.
Also, it's hard to hump a lot of gear and carry a rifle when your only protein comes from soy beans.
(03-23-2022, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, it's hard to hump a lot of gear and carry a rifle when your only protein comes from soy beans.
All joking aside, you'd think learning to subsist upon non-animal protein would be more revered in the right-wing doomsday preparation playbook. I mean, we're talking real scorched-earth scenarios here...no more Big Macs and all that.
(03-23-2022, 09:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: All joking aside, you'd think learning to subsist upon non-animal protein would be more revered in the right-wing doomsday preparation playbook. I mean, we're talking real scorched-earth scenarios here...no more Big Macs and all that.
Dude, you're thinking small. There'll be plenty of people to eat.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
