" but could we finish up that claim you made? Is the US the free market you gave in kind that has never helped those in poverty? If so, how would you explain the phenomenon of more than a century of economic mobility?"

Which claim did I make? ( I am not "larry joe" ).

" Is the US the free market you gave in kind that has never helped those in poverty?"

If we had a free market, I expect it would help those in poverty considerably.
What we have is oligarchy. I am not claiming that everyone in poverty always remains there.
I myself have done far better than family of origin expectations would lead you to believe.
And I am not disputing that the poverty numbers have gotten better.
But I stand by my statements, the wealthy control too much.
I dont know why we need to have, really, any poverty here.

"If so, how would you explain the phenomenon of more than a century of economic mobility?"

Has it been so for those in poverty? Some few move up, some move down. We still have many in poverty.
If there is help, why do we have them still?

There were some Democrats who spoke about the fact that the Electoral College gives "the win" to a candidate that didnt win the popular vote.
There was discussion that this isnt great, that it should be reformed.
There was anger and discontent and all of that. And protests.

But there was nothing like 1/6.
Hillary was not tweeting every week about having really won the election.
Trump's stump for Dr Oz in PA was about 90% "I won the election".

There were not Democratic candidates running on the platform of "the 2016 election was stolen"
There are multiple Republican candidates espousing such for the 2020 election.

There was no effort to "decertify" the election in 2016
Someone in Wisconsin attempted to do this for 2020 election

There was not an FBI officer killed by a Democrat because he believed in such.

I could go on, but I wont.
If you truly cant see the difference, you need to open your eyes and think.
You have a brain, I have seen postings from you over the years. Please use it.

"The Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to the reverse."

Have to disagree. Where do you see Democrats avoiding action?
They just passed the Climate, Etc bill that has items in it that Republicans support, but it passed.

The allies did invade Nazi Germany in 1945.

Yes, England and France could have let Germany take Poland.
Germany had taken Austria and Czechoslovakia already.
    Anschluss of Austria ( German troops move into Austria March 12 of 1938 ).
    Czechoslovakia, ceding the Sudetenland to Germany October 1 1938 ( peace in our time, Munich agreement ), then the rest in March of 1939

Germany took Poland ( with help from Russia ). England and France declare war.

Historically, Germany invaded France in 1940. The was little that happened between the fall of Poland and the invasion of France.
The Phoney War. Economic measures were taken by England and France, blockade.
France invaded Germany ( Saar offensive ), but retreated to France.

Say they had'nt declared war.. The invasion of France might have been delayed a bit, but I would find it hard to argue that it would not happen at all.

The US had been acting against Germany from before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
They were sending goods to England to support English efforts against German attacks. ( and Russia, after Germany invaded )
They had destroyers patrolling the Atlantic chasing off German submarines, leaving the English with less to patrol to protect the convoys sending those goods.
An American destroyer depth charged a German submarine during that time.
Once Japan had attacked, Roosevelt asked congress for a declaration of war against Japan ( not Germany, just Japan ).
Italy and Germany declared war on America on their own later in December. So, hmmm.
( this is why I discount the notion that that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, there was no guarantee that Germany would be involved, and it
    was clear that he wanted to support England against Germany, Japan was a distraction from that ).
Would Roosevelt have wanted to act against Germany? Clearly he did, but isolationism didnt let him.
Looking back on all this, it seems obvious that America and the allies would prevail. Earlier in the war, not so clear to the participants.
England was agreeing to technology transfers to America so we would have the benefit of them.
America did not know their own strength, there was little confidence that we would come out on top.
Leadership in England and America got together and decided that America would do just enough to hold on the Pacific front and that England and America would work to defeat Germany first. Then turn and deal with Japan.
America did better than just hold.

Anyway, turn the other cheek is nice, but doesn't seem to work, unless we want the worst among us to rule.

We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side;

    Unilateral changes would be China invading Taiwan.

we do not support Taiwan independence;

    Does not mean that we *reject* Taiwan independence
    But you are correct, we dont support it. It is one sentence of many. You cant take it in isolation.

and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.
We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

    No China invasion of Taiwan. So, if mainland China can convince Taiwan to join them peacefully we would have no objection.
    But with what happened to Hong Kong after the required return to China after the lease expired ( not to mention other territories that have joined China )
    I would not expect Taiwan to support such a move.

Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability

    The US will provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself against forced reunion with China.
    Agreeing to provide military items implies a level of support for Taiwanese independence, at least up until such a time as Taiwan agrees to union.

-– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan

    The US reserves the right to help Taiwan resist China resorting to force on the issue

    Overall, I think the text says that China and Taiwan need to agree without force or coercion to a "reunification", or the US will oppose it.

"You are making a false dichotomy, we know how to lower energy costs while we lower CO2 emissions. We do this with onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear fission, with some natural gas to bridge the gap."

    So, why havent we started?
    Leaving nuclear out, the forces standing against this are not Democrats.

"This is well documented by government funded studies. Studies that any politician in office is almost certainly aware of but refuse to abide by because it would mean agreeing with the opposing political party on energy policy."

    I see one party that is obstructive. Republican

"It would also mean they'd have to tell the ignoramuses that oppose nuclear power to sit down and shut up. Winning elections is more important to these petty tyrants than solving the problems of rising energy costs and rising CO2 emissions."

    First part, sure. Second part, again, I see one party trying to do something, the other stalling, saying there is no problem, etc.

"You believe that rising energy costs won't cost lives? The term "energy poverty" didn't exist until these morons started spreading bullshit about nuclear power and global warming."

    I am sure it will.

"These morons are going to get people killed while they try to "save the planet". If they cared about saving lives then they would not be artificially driving up energy costs."

    From where I sit, there are moron, but they are making sure people get killed trying to do nothing of worth on the subject.
    If they cared about saving lives, they would work with Democrats and environmentalists ( actually work, and bring the positives they could bring ) and get things done.

Export gives us income, sure.
I dont know how much it will help with domestic gas prices.
I expect it would lower them to some degree.
There is still the issue of getting the companies that work in that field out drilling.
Gas/oil prices were high for a bit, but I dont think it spurred any movement in that direction.

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://www.politico.com/news/...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oath...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man...

I cant find much on the right wing sites, but that makes sense, to acknowledge that there were weapons would not fit the narrative.
That patriotic right wing people brought weapons and planned to obstruct recognizing Joe Biden as president would not sit well.
So, dont report it.

Entering the Capitol was a violent event, even if those pushing their way in didn't have guns. ( not saying there were no guns )
The "law and order" bunch going into a place that they *knew* they were not allowed into.
Yes, it is "ours", but you and I both know that access is restricted. So did those who entered.

And you know they didnt just walk around taking pictures.
Pence didnt pray thru Daniel 6 "just because".

https://www.foxnews.com/live-n...
https://www.politico.com/news/...

"Democrats are big government types that need a crisis to convince people that they need more government. We've had the federal government working on global warming for over 40 years now, does anyone think they are any closer to solving the problem now than they were then?"

    We are closer, apparently not close enough though. No, I get that one event does not prove anything.
    But we keep seeing glaciers melting and temperatures rising on average.

"Government isn't going to solve this problem. That's because it is not in their interest to solve the problem. If they solve the problem then people might think they don't need the government any more."

    That is one theory. Not one I necessarily share to the extent you do

"Democrats keep trying to create some crisis or another to convince people to vote for them and make the government bigger. There are Republicans that also want to make government bigger but they aren't creating a crisis to do it, the world has enough problems that they don't need to create more."

    There are real issues out there that need action. Our effect on the one planet we inhabit seems important.

"Energy prices are going up and in response we see the Democrat controlled government cancel drilling permits for oil and gas,"

    My recollection is that the drilling permits were cancelled, then Russia invaded Ukraine, sending oil and energy prices in general soaring.
    Also, what I understand is that if we drilled like there was no tomorrow, the US based refineries would not be able to process any of it.
    So, to what end would we drill?

"refuse to issue permits for new nuclear power plants, "

    I think nuclear plants would have been excellent, had we started them a couple decades ago.
    There are also ( solvable ) issues with what we do with the spent fuel, where do we get the fuel from to begin with....

"and attempt to close hydroelectric dams over some supposed environmental damage."

    Where is this happening? Could there be real environmental damage?
    There should be room to consider our effect on our environment, both climate and non-climate.

"Without dams to control flooding we'd have far more environmental damage."

    I imagine your perspective is humanocentric. There are other considerations.

"Democrats are creating an energy crisis so that they can claim we need government to solve it. I believe this isn't going to work out so well for them in the next election. What can they offer voters? That they agree with the Republicans on a need for more oil and gas drilling, more nuclear power plants, and loosen restrictions on hydroelectric dams? Or are they going to beat the drum on abortion and gay marriage some more?"

    Winning or losing the next election is in no way a measure of the truth on weather there are problems to solve. ( spelling was deliberate )
    I agree that solutions need to be found, but oil and gas drilling are not great solutions if there are real climate issues ( which I personally believe )
    And I dont think the drillers are going to be enthusiastic about going after this, as the equipment lifespan should be short, so, profits would be lower.

    It seems that you have a thing about "Democrats". Believe it or not, they are not evil people bent on world domination.
    They are people, just like you, who happen to believe differently than you.
    I know you believe yourself to be in possession of all the facts and the correct interpretations of them. Do you understand you might be incorrect?
    Yes, I might be incorrect also. But if I am wrong, we wasted a lot of money.
    If you are wrong, and we dont manage to get things together, we waste a lot of people.

"Ukrainians are very much better off now, dying by the 100s."

I am assuming you are being sarcastic. It is possible that under Trump the Ukrainian's would have fewer deaths.
But that is only because they would be part of Russia. They dont seem to like that option, by and large.
And I dont really buy the "Peace in our time" logic.

"I don't know if Trump would do this or not, but the desirable direction for Ukraine was to remain neutral because Russia did not want Ukraine to join NATO"

Sure, but at any cost? And while noises were made about Ukraine joining NATO, nothing had some to pass.
And *why* did they want to join NATO? Because they wanted protection from Russia.
Another point. Russia didnt want Ukraine joining NATO. So what? Should Russia ( or any country ) always get what they want?

"And for those who do not know, Ukraine has a larger border with Russia than with US."

So? We should only help people we have borders with? In this Trumpian alternate universe,what happens to the other Baltic states after Russia is done with Ukraine? You and I both know they would be next. I dont know if you will admit it.

"Pissing off one's neighbors is rarely a path to the peaceful existence."

If your neighbor is determined to subjugate you, what other choice do you have?

"Most American's can't point Ukraine on the map if their life depended on it"

Agreed.. I could have, but that is neither here nor there. I'm not clear on why that is important.

"So I doubt that Ukraine staying on good terms with Russia would have impacted them in a bad way."

I dont believe there was any path that kept Ukraine independent and Russia happy.

"But now they would have to pay extra taxes to pay the $40+ billions that US is spending on supporting this war. Not sure if they are better off from it."

Their economy is messed up, they have lots of dead people. Damage from all the fighting that has and will happen.
Should they roll over and not defend themselves?

"One thing I agree with you about, is the Trump trying to hold on to the presidency was an idiotic move"

Yup.

"But Trump was not a bad president as far as presidents go"

Trump, in my opinion, is the worst president we have ever had. Economically, things were OK.
They were OK, and on the rise when he entered office. So, was it his policies, or would it have happened anyway.
He did start work on the Covid vaccines.
He also tried to downplay Covid, saying it was no worse than a bad flu.
He scrambled our foreign relationships to many different ways from Sunday
He attempted to influence the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election
He misstated ( lied ) about what was in the Mueller report.
He didnt do us any favors with NATO.
He took us out of the Paris accords on climate change.
He antagonized anyone who was liberal ( he was president for everyone, he should have acted the part ( no, he didnt have to agree with liberals, but just act like a damn actual president ) )
He did reset the relationship with China. That needed doing. And needs to go further
He did not put his affairs in a blind trust. That is a conflict of interest
He did not release his tax returns. I know that is not a legal requirement, but it makes me suspicious
He expanded both the federal budget deficit and the national debt.
He reversed several climate related policies put in under Obama.
How many people and agencies did he pressure or attempt to pressure into doing his bidding?
He lied about so many things. National security is important, but so many things were seeking office or prestige.
He incited the 1/6 Capitol riots. The more that comes out, the more it looks like attempted insurrection.
He attempted to pressure states to return "alternate slates" of electors.
He attempted to pressure election officials to return results that were incorrect
After the election ( to date, if I am not mistaken ) he refused to accept the results.
Relations between conservatives and liberals have been deteriorating with time. He took pains to make it worse.
He takes advantage of that to make political points for himself.

"Democrats with rather die than agree with that, and anyone who thinks that Trump was an OK president is an "extremist"."

My reaction to Trump is not knee jerk or automatic.
When he took office, I had great hopes based on his promises.
He failed on his own efforts. You may have noticed in my list above, there were a couple items I think were positive from him.
I didnt want him to. But, there it is.

Trump had different underlying situations on many fronts. And you know that.
If Trump faced what Biden is facing, what would he have done differently?
Probably the only real difference would have been to roll over for Putin on Ukraine
So, economically, we *might* be better off. Ukrainians would be worse off.
We would have an autocrat in office seeking to increase his power.
Americans would be worse off.

Can you admit you were wrong? Do you have a line?
It seems pretty clear at this point that Trump worked very hard at attempting to hold on to the Presidency despite loosing and knowing he lost the 2020 election.

Please, for the sake of the United States, stop loving Trump so blindly that you will screw up everything for everyone.

"You seem to have misread. I wasn't taking sides, I was giving a current-events example where one side made a political/legal change, and then the other side followed a very similar playbook and led pretty much directly to something the first side really super didn't+doesn't like and will keep on not liking for all time."

    I could be wrong. Your example is wrongdoing on the part of the liberal side. You came across to me as one of the many conservatives who see everything liberals do as evil, yet cheer like mad when conservatives do evil.

"Congratulations, you've just argued my point.
I was saying that anyone in favor of the law that just got taken down should actually be glad that politicians aren't allowed to dictate who gets hired, because the next change in political power could see the legal pendulum reverse directions, and the same power be used in a foreseeable way that the authors of the original law and its legal concepts probably really wouldn't have liked."

    Honestly, I was not trying to argue against your point WRT to the proposed legislation.
In fact, I am wondering if you see that your point applies quite well to conservatives.
Conservatives just rammed thru several supreme court positions, I would argue that it was dishonourably done, and has given rise to anger on the liberal side.
A lot of the positions being advanced in conservative political discourse these days have been out and out lies ( Trump won the election being a top runner ).
All this is making me ( center to liberal ) quite mad. Argue policy and all that all day long.
The lying ( and Im not saying you are lying ) needs to stop.

You see that the tit-for-tat stuff is not awesome, yet you seem to be OK with it when your side does it.

I am sure you feel that Republicans are the underdogs and are always being picked on, but consider that it might not be so.
And, assuming it was so, picking back is not great.

An example, was it OK for McConnell not consider Obama's supreme court pick, saying "the next prez should pick" ( cuz the election was coming up ), then to advance Barrett with less time on the clock? Sure, you see it as good, you got your conservative court, and possibly a Roe V Wade overturn.
You know perfectly well you would be angry as heck if the shoe was on the other foot.

I quite agree. It would be great if smart people had more voting rights than idiots.

Now, your challenge is to design a system that will ensure that such a system does not become a system to ensure some in-crowd are "smart" and an out-crowd are "dumb". No hand waving.

"Also, "stand behind democracy" is a meaningless phrase, Ukraine is/was not a bastion of democracy, this war was completely avoidable by simply keeping Ukraine out of NATO (thus providing Putin with a buffer country), Russia has survived under sanctions for decades and knows how to deal with them, and..."

    No, the Ukraine was not a bastion of Democracy. It seemed headed that way, to me.
    But what are it's chances now? If it is absorbed into Russia, zero.

This whole situation is clearly due to a lack of leadership. The US could simply have made an agreement with Putin to keep Ukraine out of NATO. That would have put the pin back in the grenade for at least another 20 years.

    US != NATO.
    Further, Ukraine wanted into NATO. Probably seeing this day on the horizon.
    I dont believe that the Ukraine would have lasted long as a buffer state.
    Maybe longer than this, but not much.

"I strongly suspect that the whole thing was ginned up to give current leadership a much-needed "win" in some way, or maybe start a new venue for the sales and trafficking in arms. The US seems no longer interested in what's best for people (people of the country, people in the world), but seems more interested in what's best for their "team"."

    I expect this is a knock on Biden. For what it is worth, the US lead by Trump was the administration you describe.
    Unable to concede an election that he lost, blaming everything on witch hunts and unable to take anything that resembles personal responsibility.

"Putin didn't want this and doesn't really have the resources to sustain this, but we pretty much forced his hand."

    Putin wanted this. He has made many statements about how the breakup of the former USSR was the wrong thing to do.
    Russia has been supporting separatists in Ukraine for a while now.
    He got Crimea without much fuss, now he wants the rest.
    I would not be surprised if other former Soviet satellite nations were brought back in days to come, if we dont respond strongly to this.
    We should have done more when Crimea was taken.