Poll: Almost Forty Percent of Americans Say That They Would Rather Flee Than Defend the United States

In World War II, Winston Churchill famously declared that “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” It appears that there may be even fewer to count on if a recent poll out this weekend is accurate. The Quinnipiac University poll asked Americans “what would you do if you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, stay and fight or leave the country?” Only 55 percent said that they would stay and fight for this country. That included only 40 percent of Democrats. Overall 38 percent of Americans said that they would flee. It appears that this country is facing an existential crisis of faith and we should have a frank discussion about why so comparably few Americans are now willing to pledge their lives in defense of this country.

Quinnipiac has long been relied upon in polling in the United States and is one of the most cited polling outfits for the media.

It is important to note that, while the results were shocking overall, many did say that they would stand and defend the United States from any invader. When asked this question 68 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents say that they would fight. However more than half of Democrats (52%) said they would flee before fighting for their country (Eight percent did not have an answer, a shrug that is equally alarming).

As someone who came from a liberal, Democratic family in Chicago, I was shocked by the poll. My father and grandfather fought in the World Wars and everyone I grew up with on the liberal Northside of Chicago was both intensely liberal and intensely patriotic. Indeed, I often heard my parents challenge Republican friends for suggesting that conservatives were more patriotic or more willing to sacrifice for their country.

For my maternal Sicilian family, they felt a deep bond to the country that took them in and allowed them to live in freedom. Despite the prejudice that they encountered and difficult times, my Sicilian grandparents celebrated Independence Day like a religious holiday and often discussed their pride when they became American citizens. My grandfather was a union organizer and a coal miner who developed black lung in the mines of Ohio. He could not read or write but he could proudly recite parts of the Declaration of Independence and our national anthem.

We should be alarmed by this poll because it shows a deep disconnection with this country and its protection. If you are not willing to defend this country, citizenship becomes a status of convenience; an opportunistic association that can be shed as easily as it is acquired. It is a commitment that extends little beyond annual tax obligations.

Notably, the poll did not pose a question over what might be viewed as an unjustified war in another land like Vietnam. This question asked about an invasion of our country. Indeed, despite the opposition to Vietnam, many Democrats and liberals still felt obligated to answer the call for service when drafted.

The poll shows a crisis of faith within the Democratic party, but also our country at large. People have lost faith in our common article of faith in the Constitution. That did not occur over night. There have been unrelenting attacks on our institutions and core values for years that ignore our countervailing successes. We have gone through terrible periods and faced terrible institutions and practices from slavery to segregation. However, we faced them as a people united in a common faith captured in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

We have not always lived up to those principles. Indeed, when those words were written, millions were left in slavery and millions were barred from voting, property ownership. and other basic rights of citizenship. However, we became better than we were due to a faith in ourselves and our common constitutional bound.

This is just one poll and people can have different motivations in answering such questions. However, there was clearly a desire by many to convey this disconnection with the country in their answers that suggest something more than just impish responses.

There has been a growing agnosticism regarding this country as many challenge our foundational institutions and values. It is captured in words of leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who questioned the very need for the Supreme Court when it was not ruling in line with her own views: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” That is a worthy debate to have and our Constitution protects all sides in having it. Yet, there is an underlying message that, because our institutions did not produce the results demanded by Ocasio-Cortez, we are told to scrap them.

Elie Mystal, who writes for the Nation and Above the Law, called the Constitution “kind of trash.” In his new book, “Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution,” Mystal says that we should just ignore what the Framers thought or said. When asked “if are you arguing that the Constitution needs to be scrapped altogether?” Mystal said he would be “all for” a move to “throw out” the Constitution. Others, including lawyers, agreed with Mystal and declared “the Constitution is trash.”

It is a crisis of faith shown in academics like Georgetown Professor Eddie Glaude insisting that we need to scrap what we have and be “refounded” rather than “tinker around the edges while people are dying.” He insists that, despite the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and anti-discrimination laws, it is hopeless to expect the system to change: “At every moment when a new America seems to be about to be born, the umbilical cord of white supremacy is wrapped around the baby’s neck, choking the life out of it. ”

The curious aspect of such comments is that we are constantly being reborn as a people. Our Constitution created an experiment in self-governance that remains a work in progress. However, it does not guarantee that you simply get what you want or you can “throw out” the Constitution like Mystal’s unwanted trash.

The people of Ukraine have given the world a symbol of defiance and faith. That is a country that has been deeply divided in the past and only gained its independence in 1991. Vladimir Putin clearly counted on many opting to stand aside rather than stand up for their young nation. Instead, opposing parties and leaders stood together and united in their common identity as Ukrainians.

It appears from this poll that many of us have lost that capacity for faith and sacrifice. Many are unwilling to take that same leap of faith in our system and each other.

President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who was decorated for his bravery in World War II, famously declared in 1961: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” The question is whether Americans are willing to answer the same call today.














285 thoughts on “Poll: Almost Forty Percent of Americans Say That They Would Rather Flee Than Defend the United States”

  1. I left America in 2014 on a ship, a complete reversal of the founding of America as I left as and how the founders came, white male Christian landowners who set sail for a new land when persecution for their beliefs and lack of opportunity to own land because of nobility drove them from their home.

    America has become what it was founded to solve. And it has happened because the Constitution enshrined the right to govern in white male Christian landowners instead of stakeholders. When the vote was diluted because the landowners became as corrupt as the nobility and placating the masses was their only way to retain their power.

    I believe in what America was founded for and to be. But I despise what it has become, and especially those who have stood by and let it; more concerned about their so-called right to vote while they shirk their even their basic obligations to society. I am not only a white male Christian landowner (read the Constitution sometime) but I am a stakeholder, having contributed and provided ladting contributions to society.

    I understand precisely what is wrong with America. It is most like you, for your failure to even read the Constitution, much less contribute to society and fight for what America represents: the opportunity for self reliant people to come together and govern themselves.

    How far has America come from that? I am self reliant, yet even in escaping and seeking refuge, I am still harassed and tortured by the US government.

    What did YOU do to make America what it is today?

    1. America and the Constitution were not designed for a plurality of voters such as exists today. When voting was restricted to those white men who owned property, the country prospered. Allowing those without property to vote was the first mistake, as it allowed those without substantial “skin in the game” to have far too much say in matters. Allowing the immigration and suffrage of non-northern Europeans (most of whom, having little concept of liberty, chose almost automatically to vote for despotism, aka Democrat), compounded the error. Allowing women to vote was utter poison for the country, as almost all women, being emotionally unstable and prone to flights of illogic and monthly insanity, are poor judges of the character of candidates as well as national matters in general, and will vote for security over freedom every single time.

      Universal suffrage, as well as dispensing with the early post-Colonial requirement for all candidates for public office to be professing Christian men, eventually destroyed what America should have been as surely as an invading army would. That said, such destruction was “baked in the cake” by the Founders, who were to a man Freemasons and who did their part to create what they termed “the Great Experiment”, which involved the U.S. becoming the top world power, and thus the “muscle” for the international banking interests which effectively run the world behind the scenes.

    2. Would you stay and fight for America if we were invaded? If so, why? Let’s take a hypothetical white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, Christian male as an example. You’ve been told for the last 10 or so years that you are the cause of all of the world’s problems, the originator of original sin, a hater, and an oppressor, and that evil is intrinsic to your supremacist culture – that you are the personification of iniquity. Your tax dollars go to support a system that denigrates you as “toxic”. Your tax dollars are spent on projects that have a reserve (quota) that is available only to those who don’t look like you (the other) and from which you are barred participating, but, of course, “the other” can compete with you for whatever is outside of the quota. There are some jobs/positions from which you are excluded even from consideration, regardless of your qualifications, because an “other” is needed for “balance”, or equity, or some other fatuous reason. Your expression of faith is trampled upon, both in the military where you are told that (1) “Yes, you can have a chaplain, but any ‘chaplain’ (i.e. Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist) will do for you” and (2) in the civilian world you hear “We don’t care what you think about sodomy, you will by the Lord Harry endorse it by baking the sodomites a cake or we will ruin you.” Should some select others determine that your presence makes them uncomfortable or feel unsafe – well, that’s obviously your fault, and I’m afraid we’re going to have to let you go. The “Academy” prefers to hire “other than you”, and if you are hired, should you be so foolish as to criticize an “other” you are forced to defend yourself from efforts to cancel you. In these efforts to defend yourself, truth is not a defense, or even of much import. Try suggesting or responding that your life might be as important as the lives of select “others”.

      There are some people who should be willing to fight-bleed-die for the society described above, but I think they’d look a more like “the other” than like me. I think I’ll reserve judgement on the question of “joining up” till I see who is invading, and why.

  2. Wow! Turley not only gets in licks for the Democrats, but also Eddie Glaude, Elie Mystal and AOC. I doubt that most of the disciples even know who Eddie Glaude and Elie Mystal are Theoretical polls like this, in which the USA is not close to getting invaded by anyone, don’t mean much, and don’t necessarily reflect what people would actually do if America was invaded, but that wasn’t the point, was it, Turley? The objects of your attacks are very predictable, as is you penchant for ignoring bigger political stores because they don’t fit the Fox narrative. Tucker Carlson actually accused Kamala Harris of “inciting” the invasion of Ukraine. Carlson’s comments are re-broadcast on Russian television, with translations, as propaganda. Why not comment on attacks by your employer against our President and his administration being used as propaganda? These are the people you have aligned yourself with, Turley, and in the end, you’ll find it wasn’t worth it.

    Turley waxes philosophical about American pride and patriotism while ignoring the biggest threat to American democracy: Donald J. Trump. The outrageous things he says and does are unprecedented, especially his violation of the unwritten rule about former office-holders not getting involved in politics, not criticizing their successor, graciously conceding defeat and attending their successor’s inauguration as a show of the American value of the peaceful transfer of power and generally fading into the background to respect the will of the American people. Instead, he constantly lies about his “landslide victory” being “stolen”, he keeps stirring up the disciples to hate Joe Biden and the Democrats, blaming them for everything, and now, makes the unbelievable claim (unbelievable even for him, a pathological liar) that Putin held off invading Ukraine to somehow “honor” him because he is so wonderful. The fact is, Putin didn’t need to attack Ukraine while he had his lap dog in our White House, trashing NATO and the EU, lobbying to get Russia back into the G-7 and siding with Putin over American Intelligence. Then, there’s the Olympics: President XI asked Putin not to start anything until the Olympics were over because of the boycotts and travel problems starting a war would involve. The Olympics were delayed for a year due to pandemic. Nevertheless, the malignant narcissist, who actually believes that people just love him immediately because he’s so wonderful, is now spreading the lie that his “stolen landslide victory” is the reason Putin invaded Ukraine. And, like all of the other lies, the disciples probably buy this one, too.

    1. Sad, but true, there is an argument to be made that Putin was emboldened by the “foreign policy” stance of Mr. Biden’s Administration.

      1. Recall that many Russians are killing and ransacking Ukraine just because their fearless leader tells them to do so. Natacha belongs to that type of cult


      2. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Want to know who REALLY emboldens Putin? Tucker Carlson. From Mediaite:

        “According to a new report, the Russian government is instructing media outlets to use more clips of Fox News host Tucker Carlson criticizing the United States and defending Russia for its war against Ukraine.

        Progressive outlet Mother Jones obtained a document called “For Media and Commentators,” which was reportedly part of several memos from Russia’s Department of Information and Telecommunications Support. The memos were provided by “a contributor to a national Russian media outlet who asked not to be identified.”

        “It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts of the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who sharply criticizes the actions of the United States [and] Nato, their negative role in unleashing the conflict in Ukraine, [and] the defiantly provocative behavior from the leadership of the eastern countries and Nato towards the Russian Federation and towards President Putin, personally,” the memo says, according to a translation by Mother Jones.

        It also notes Carlson’s position that “Russia is only protecting its interests and security,” and includes a quote from the Fox News host: “How would the U.S. behave if such a situation developed in neighboring Mexico or Canada?”

        Mother Jones provided photos of the documents, along with an outline of which narratives the Russian government is trying to get the media to spread. The memo’s references to Carlson are included a section called “Victory in Information War,” wherein Russian journalists are instructed to push sympathetic coverage of the Kremlin, along with negative coverage of the Ukrainian government.

        Related video: Fact-check: Fox’s Tucker Carlson caught amplifying Kremlin claims (MSNBC)

        The article follows previous reports revealing that Carlson has been increasingly featured by Russian media propagandists trying to defend the violent invasion. While Carlson has recently criticized Putin’s invasion, he previously downplayed the threat of war and defended Russia’s aggression.

        Last week, Carlson wholeheartedly embraced an unproven conspiracy theory pushed by Russia that Ukraine and the U.S. were developing bioweapons in the eastern European country. The Fox News host even seemed to attack his colleague, Jennifer Griffin, for objecting to that theory.

        Russian state media quickly picked up Carlson’s commentary on the bioweapons claim.

        The post LEAKED: Memo From Russian Government Reportedly Instructs Media to Promote Fox News’ Tucker Carlson first appeared on Mediaite.

        The Russian people would have the power to get rid of Putin if they organized strong opposition to Putin and were only told the truth about the mass murdering that’s going on there and if they weren’t lied to about there being Nazis and/or biolabs in Ukraine. Fox, Turley’s employer, is clearly strengthening Vladimir Putin by putting out lies and anti-American rhetoric. Ever since Trump came on the scene, we’ve seen shockingly unpatriotic things previously believed to be unimaginable, like an US President who incites a riot based on the lie that his “landslide victory” was stolen because he lost an election, who won’t go away or shut up, and who continually criticizes his successor, blaming him for every problem we have now. Trump actually claimed that his magnetic personality kept Putin at bay, which is the most-shocking display of arrogance and narcissism ever. Then, there’s the Trump media outlets who publicize lies and anti-American rhetoric that are used as Russian propaganda. What does Turley use his platform write about- criticism of Democrats and those he perceives as enemies.

    2. Democrats did this

      “ Amazon moves employees out of downtown Seattle office due to crime”

      March 12, 2022 at 1:19 pm

      “There are currently 1,800 employees that work at the Amazon office, previously home to a Macy’s department store and located less than a mile from its main headquarters. Amazon opened the office in 2018.

      Earlier this month Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz said SPD was “launching an initiative to curb the violent criminal behavior” in the area near Amazon’s office.

      The crime in downtown Seattle is causing many businesses, tech companies included, to either move offices or adopt a wait-and-see approach of staying remote even as COVID-19 cases recede.”



      The WSJ covered Seattle’s warfare story last February

      👇🏽 👇🏽 👇🏽

      “Why Thieves Love Seattle”
      Businesses describe how criminals operate with impunity.

      Feb. 15, 2022 6:54 pm ET

      Democrats elsewhere may be fleeing the defund the police movement, but it lives on in Seattle. Business owners told the City Council last week what the resulting breakdown in law and order means in daily life, and it deserves more attention.

      Wednesday’s hearing came days after the Seattle Police Department released its 2021 year-end crime report, which showed a 20% surge in violent crime to the highest levels in 14 years. Aggravated assaults rose 24% in 2021 from 2020, and robberies 18%.“


      Democrats did this to our nation

      👇🏽 👇🏽 👇🏽

      “Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan then appeared on CNN with Chris Cuomo and declared that the occupation could lead to a “summer of love.”

      “How long do you think Seattle and those few blocks looks like this?” Cuomo asked.

      “I don’t know. We could have a summer of love!” Durkan responded.”

    3. Tell me you’re a brainless sheep without telling me you’re a brainless sheep. Keep on believing all the propaganda and maybe your 6 booster shots will save you from tHe BiGgEsT tHrEaT tO oUr DeMoCrAsY. Don’s been out for a year and he still lives rent free in your head. Grow up

    1. Vic Simmons – you might be able to go to their site and get the poll breakout.

      1. Quinnipiac does break down the answers by sex and separately by age, but it doesn’t break them down by combinations of age and sex. The age range that was most likely to respond “stay and fight” was 50-64 year olds. Men were much more likely than women to say they’d stay and fight (70% vs. 40%).

        Full data:

        The question was “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?,” and my guess is that at least some respondents interpreted this as “If you were living in Ukraine now…,” not as “If Russia were invading the US …”

          1. “Responses are reported for 1,374 adults with a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. The survey includes 1,234 self-identified registered voters with a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Margins of sampling error for subgroups are available upon request.”

            That’s a typical sample size for their polls.

  3. If almost 40% would flee the country, then the question would be, would the more than 60% let them back in?

  4. “Notably, the poll did not pose a question over what might be viewed as an unjustified war in another land like Vietnam. This question asked about an invasion of our country. Indeed, despite the opposition to Vietnam, many Democrats and liberals still felt obligated to answer the call for service when drafted.”
    Did they really? When I visited my local induction center in 1967, they were drafting 80,000/month and our options were to serve or to flee the country, which meant never coming back and severing ties with family, friends, and sweethearts. It wasn’t much of a choice; both the law and the moral opprobrium of those close to us severely constrained our choices, and even had we wanted to leave, most of us had no idea how or where to go. (You see this in Ukraine, where almost three million have fled, while the eldery and men from 16 to 60 remain to fight because they must.) Most of us who served did not “answer the call” (as those who volunteered did), we were conscripted, as a vehicle might be requisitioned, and many of us thought it less than fair to be forced to risk our lives in a foreign land to support a (domino) theory when we were not even old enough to drink legally in our own country. Nor were we unique in our reluctance to die far from home. The country was split between urban and rural areas, regionally, and by socio-economic class.
    When Gallup asked how many Americans supported the war in Vietnam in August 1965, 61 percent answered affirmatively, and they were not being asked to “answer the call,” just agree with the government. By July ’67, the number doing so had fallen to 48 percent, by August of ’68 to 35 percent, and by May ’71 to 28 percent, when I joined thousands of people to protest the war in DC and listen to the Beach Boys, Phil Ochs, and Linda Rondstadt at Potomoc Park, as the National Guard rounded up thosands of the activists who had descended on the city, as well as anybody with long hair or a beard, and put them in a temporary holding facility at JFK Stadium. The Vietcong occupied Saigon four years later, on May Day, an important date for the old Left; a link for Mayday ’71.
    So this poll is not surprising. Consensus is a chimera and has always been coerced, during World War I (when many in the population came from the Central Powers) and World War II (as Studs Terkel showed in The Good War). The country is divided now, as it was during our intervention in Vietnam’s civil war, but now we are no longer a nation in arms. Young men are no longer conscripted; they “volunteer” to serve in a professional military whose lower ranks earn a lot more than the $60/month that privates were paid in ’65. Consequently, most Americans have little experience of the military, much less of war, and fewer and fewer colleges and universities have professors who know anything about war, unlike my generation, who were raised on memories of WW2, had relatives who had served (10 million did so, out of 149 million), and professors who had served in the armed forces and the OSS.
    What is interesting are the poll’s correlations. Most Republicans, those from military households, Hispanics, white men, men generally, and those between the ages of 50 and 64 would stay and fight (66 to 75 percent, with only 19 to 33 percent leaving), with an almost perfect correlation between Republicans and those from military households. Democrats, white women, women generally, blacks, and those between the ages of 18 and 34 would prefer to leave (47 to 59 percent), with just 38 to 45 percent willing to stay and fight. Independents are in the middle, as are those with and without college degrees (55 to 58 percent would stay and fight, 35 to 36 percent would leave).
    The meaning of these results is arbitrary because respondents were not asked to explain their preferences, a common failing of polls. But two things seem obvious — there is no consensus among Americans (55 to 38 percent, with 7 undecided is only a ‘mandate’ if one is a political hack or a propagandist), and more would defend their homeland than would abandon it (55 to 38 percent). As somebody else noted, that is more support than George Washington & friends enjoyed in 1776, when the terms “summer soldier” and “sunshine patriot” were coined by the (deliberately) forgotten man of our revolutionary war.

    1. I wouldn’t conflate the war in Vietnam – undertaken as part of the Cold War “containment” strategy, and, in that context, perfectly “justified” – with the American Revolution. Thomas Paine is hardly the “forgotten man” of the American Revolution.

  5. WOKE snowflakes, as mindless as they are, will soon realize there is no place to flee……………unless they consider Cuba or North Korea viable choices.

  6. As presented by Turley, an example of how to lie with statistics.

    Require the age and gender profile of the responders to even begin making sense of the answers to whatever the question actually stated. Turley doesn’t bother to quote it.

    In summary, a lawyer’s lies.

    1. Benson:

      “As presented by Turley, an example of how to lie with statistics.

      Require the age and gender profile of the responders to even begin making sense of the answers to whatever the question actually stated. Turley doesn’t bother to quote it.

      In summary, a lawyer’s lies.”
      Turley didn’t create the poll; Quinnipiac did. You just don’t like your brethren being exposed for the soulless, men-without-a-country cowards they so clearly are. And what difference does gender make? Aren’t you the guys who want weaker women in the Fox holes? Seems so Victorian of you to think women are the scaredy cats. And you can rest assured that no ten-year-olds were polled. So the only question now is what would you do? I’m laying odds you’re shuffling off to Nova Scotia as the first hint of hostility. Like so many leftist academics, you have strong minds but weak spines. In summary, yours are radical old hippie rantings. Cowardly in in the 60s. Cowardly now.

        1. David – you have been making stuff up for 229 weeks. Get to work on getting me my citations or admit you Make Stuff Up.

  7. It may be that the reason so many in all generations across the board would hypothetically not be willing to fight and die for the democratic republic of the USA is that so many (on the basis of their own observations and experience as opposed to what the lying media propagandists tell them) think America is actually run by a very subtle just below the surface oligarchy comprised of a self-perpetuating elitist socio-economic and political class of wealthy families educated in the “best” universities of higher education who have learned to use the administrative state to gain control of the government process and the most important corporations of the private sector, collectively known as the “deep state.” If the USA is no longer a democracy governed by and for We the People under the rule of law and “our country” is no longer ours, why die for it?

    1. Absolutely correct. There is not one reason to risk life and limb, or those of the people one loves, for the filthy cabal running this country. They can take the bullets for the rest of us.

  8. “… Only 55 percent said that they would stay and fight for this country. That included only 40 percent of Democrats. Overall 38 percent of Americans said that they would flee. …”
    Then why are We spending Sh_tloads of money on Defense Military Budgets (Disclosed & Covert) ?

    When we could be building Tomorrowland !

  9. Hmmm….
    Regarding this poll’s results:

    Polling error?

    Propaganda intended to demoralize?

    1. It”s an improvement over the percent that supported the Revolution.. 33%

  10. Some Russian arithmetic:

    1. By defintion, a country’s army engages in war crimes if it shells civilian areas without just cause.
    2.The Russian army has been accused of shelling civilian areas in Ukraine without just cause.
    3. If the allegation in #2 is proven a true fact, then the Russian army had engaged in _________________.
    4. The Ukrainan army has been accused of shelling civilian areas in Eastern Ukraine without just cause.
    5. If the allegation in #4 is proven a true fact then Ukraine has engaged in _________________.

    Now the real question: if #2 and #4 are proven true, then why the Hell are we considering helping either side?

    Bonus: If we’re all worked up by the answer to #3, why weren’t we worked up the answer to#5?

    Bonus Bonus: What do people of bad faith do when they want you to do something you don’t want to do for their benefit?

    Bonus Bonus Bonus: Why would anyone risk any troops or treasure until #3 and #4 are proven true or false?

    Bonus Bonus Bonus Bonus (moralizers only): Which is worse conduct — war crimes against an opponent or war crimes against your own citizens.

    1. Given the main duty of all nations is to protect their citizens that pay for national defense, the later would be worse in my opinion.

  11. “Russia requests military assistance from China in invasion of Ukraine”

    Russia isn’t, and hasn’t been, afraid of provoking America, so why should America be afraid of provoking Russia?

    1. An insane man isn’t afraid of provoking a sane man, so why should a sane man be afraid of provoking an insane man?

      1. anon @7:31 Seems likely you have never poked an insane man. If you had you would know the answer.

        1. I don’t go around poking strangers, regardless of their mental health status. If you do, you should stop.

          1. An Anonymous is using two names, Lefty665 ( a new name) and Anonymous. The question arises, is the new name one of the anonymous crowd? Is it ATS trying to create a new identity. He does that quite frequently and then denies it. It’s not essential since we already know The habits of ATS, so we can choose to believe what we wish.


    2. One should use both hard and soft power judiciously. Biden has wasted both away. Add to that his emasculation of the military and the destruction of the most critical weapon, one’s economy and you have a country that is not ready to fight. When that happens, the world becomes a less safe place. Add to that Biden’s proven inabilities and Putin’s aggressive ambitions. That is a mix that can lead to a nuclear exchange.

      1. S. Meyer: it was Trump who decimated our economy, and he inherited the most-successful economy in American history from Barak Obama. Among the reasons, besides his botched handling of the pandemic, is the stupid tariffs he imposed on China, which slowed down imports. So when the pandemic was mostly over and Americans were able to start spending money again, there were supply-chain problems, exacerbated by factories shutting down or closing, all of which happened when your hero was in office. When he was forced out of the White House, unemployment was above 10%, and Biden has set a record for the fastest job growth in US history. Biden didn’t “emasculate” our military, either. Just this morning, I saw an interview with a military expert who explained how Trump demanded that all our troops be pulled out of Syria, and how our military leaders begged him not to do this, but he did it anyway. Now, Putin is looking to Syria to help him murder Ukrainians. Then, it was Trump who drew down our troops in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 2,500 and let loose 5,000 imprisoned Taliban, all without negotiating for a continued presence in Afghanistan or even an air base. All of that is on Trump.

        What, exactly are “Bidens proven inabilities”? If any POTUS has “proven inabilities”, it’s Trump. And, what “hard and soft power” has Biden “wasted away”. If you can’t explain these conclusions, then just admit you are parroting something you heard on alt-right news.

        1. “S. Meyer: it was Trump who decimated our economy.”

          Natacha, I can’t help it if you don’t know the facts. If you look at unemployment figures, you can see how slow the economy grew under Obama and how fast it grew under Trump. Since the facts don’t support you, you don’t deal with them.

          Let’s start with the unemployment figures. Tell us the numbers. Compare the last year of Obama to the first year of Trump.

          “he inherited the most-successful economy in American history from Barak Obama.”

          Do you have any proof? NO. The only thing you can show is the upswing after a recession. The problem is the upswing was slow, demonstrating poor economic policy.

          “his botched handling of the pandemic”

          Maybe you are talking about lives lost under Trump, but more lives were lost under Biden despite Trump leaving Biden with a vaccine Biden laughed at. Trump left him with anti-virals, yet more deaths occurred under Biden.

          “the stupid tariffs he imposed on China”

          Why were they stupid? He was trying to bring industry back to the US and change the dirty dealings China was engaged in. I guess you support China and big tech moving there. Do you also support Biden making money off the sale of American industry to China, where some of that industry benefited the Chinese military?

          You have produced another of your infamous word salads, something you are notorious for. Pick one topic and deal in-depth, not the superficial cr-p you provide.

          Oh, by the way, I provided you with a short course on international law regarding Israel. I haven’t heard a word back. Why? Because when you are faced with facts and in-depth discussion, you have to run away, for all you have is the same word salad over and over again.

    3. I suggest you watch Professor John Mearsheimer lectures on youtube as to who has been provoking who. Why is it our former enemy Germany is in NATO and our former ally is not after asking twice?

  12. Why should I try to achieve any success in life when everything I achieve can be incinerated by a hydrogen bomb?

    1. Precisely! Before it can become productive, the environment must be carefully prepared to accommodate and facilitate. The American Founders accomplished that, as did the Israelites before them. General Patton revealed the path after WWII; sadly, it was not taken.

      Joshua 6 Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

      2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

      20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

      27 So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

    2. “‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Get outta bed sleepy head & live!

  13. Simon says:

    “I suppose, to you, the destruction of Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis was just fine”

    Did I say that? What did I say? I was reprinting what *Turley* said about the Trumpists who desecrated “the most sacred moment of our Constitutional system” on 1/6.

    Like Turley, I am for law and order. I do not defend Antifa just like Turley does not defend the Proud Boys, the 3 percenters, the Oath Keepers, Q-Anon, etc.

    1. That’s good to hear, because the image of Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrat politicians clad in their kente cloths cravenly kneeling in subservience to the BLM riots to score political points ahead of the 2020 elections will be forever burned into the retinas of Americans everywhere.

    2. “Like Turley, I am for law and order.”

      Actually, you are not and just pretending or joking though your comments speak for themselves.

    1. Sorry, but Putin isn’t even in the same league as Chicago Mayor Lori ‘phallus maximus’ Lightfoot.

      1. Epstein – I think the mayor should be required to ‘prove’ she has the phallus maximus in Chicago. Strap-ons don’t count.

        1. That one is best left to the trained professionals over at Snopes. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

            1. Much like Mayor ‘Phallus Maximus’ Lightfoot and their fellow disciples of the failed church of progressive ideology, Snopes went morally bankrupt some time ago.

      2. Affirmative action, quotas, generational welfare, and the various, sundry and several manner of “free stuff” are irrefutably unconstitutional.

        The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have purchased all the votes they need for conquest.

        Mayor Perv is an artificial, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) construct, and immutably fraudulent and illegitimate.

        This phantom and faux down is up and up is down has persisted far too long in the America of its Founders.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: