The election was theirs to lose, and by God did they ever do what they’re best at.

Wolff has been like this for decades. He’s as craven as the rest of them. But he’s also very often right.

Did you do that on purpose? Illustrate the truth of the joke by no-true-Scotsmaning leftism, I mean? Because if so, bravo, and if not, lol

So we’re talking a bit past each other then. You have mentioned the cause of a divided Korea, which I largely agree with. (Although the US/UN were perhaps too quick on the trigger to hold elections only in the South, though it likely made no difference to the ultimate outcome) I was talking about the cause of the war. In my mind they are not the same thing, albeit two steps on the same dire path.

It’s not quite so straightforward.

If I recall my history correctly there were several opportunities for the North and South to work something out but to a large degree Syngman Rhee blocked it because he insisted on his own dictatorship rather than devolving any power to various labor-run initiatives around the country. (He was on the US/UN side and still turned out to be a maniac so those UN elections were mostly a symbol) That, and killing a bunch of unionizers of course.

It is true the Soviets had their own outcome they were angling for, but without US support Rhee would probably have been forced out and a compromise could have been reached.

Broadly speaking the Soviets were a lot less interested in securing outright puppet regimes than the US. History shows they were more reactive than proactive, so had the US backed off they might well have left it alone. Then again, this is of course a hypothetical.

It’s one of those things where yes, you can recognize that the US supported an inhumane regime in the south that was at least 50% the reason why Korea was pushed to civil war, simply for its own selfish geopolitical purposes… while also recognizing that there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then. And while the South made good progress on its governance, the North went totally the opposite way.

But when your brain is fueled on “everything the US is against, I must support”, such considerations go out the window.

Or you’re listening to a podcast and space out a few seconds. Then you skip back to listen again and zone out again. Rinse and repeat until you don’t care anymore.

I also don’t need to miss the context of the discussion…

Speaking of missing the context, my initial comment, to which you replied, was:

Still maddening [that so many vote for him], but…

Two things can be true at the same time. It’s maddening that so many vote for him, the electoral college is why republicans still win, and, I’ll throw you a bone, the electoral college probably wouldn’t be a problem if fewer people voted for Trump—but it would still be a damn stupid way to run an election.

Let me introduce a hypothetical: the electoral college didn’t exist, Republicans saw they couldn’t win on current policies as far back as 2012 and were forced to moderate to win the popular vote. We might not be in this current political climate in the first place

It is still bonkers that…

Yes, and my initial comment was:

Still maddening, but…

we’re in violent agreement

Depends how loose your definition of half is, I guess. Trump got 46.8% of the popular vote in 2020 vs Biden’s 51.3%.

2016: Trump 41.1% (still won) vs Clinton 48.2%. 2012: Obama 51.1% (winner) vs Romney 47.2%. 2008: Obama 52.9% (winner) vs McCain 45.7%. 2004: Bush 50.7% (winner) vs Kerry 48.3%. 2000: Bush 47.9% (still won) vs Gore 48.4%. 1996: Clinton 49.2% (winner) vs Dole 40.7% vs Perot 8.4%. 1992: Clinton 43% (winner) vs Bush 37.4% vs Perot 18.9%. 1988: Bush 53.4% (winner) vs Dukakis 45.6%. And that’s as far as I could be bothered to go back.

With the exception of Bush in 2004, every Republican president since 1988 won only because of the electoral college. See the problem?

Half the electoral college vote. Still maddening but let’s not forget that a shitty election system is the only thing keeping the Republicans in power now

This is not a thousand year conflict. It’s modern imperialism

What a coincidence. I never knew this despite my penchant for useless trivia but just yesterday at an airport I overheard some high school kids asking each other trivial pursuit questions and this was one. The next day: this post. Uncanny.

Water is wet. More at 11

As a Norwegian: seconded. It’s tough to get real close and personal with Nordic people. We have smaller friend groups and don’t swap out friends often, but that is largely because we are quite loyal. So when you’re in, you’re in to stay.

It’s Shroedinger’s ethics. You can’t really know until you open the upstanding pastor’s secret box and it happens to be full of CSAM and bodies.

What.the.fuck.are.you.talking.about. Have you not clocked that your comment comes off as if you’re a classic libertarian? If that’s not what you intended, take a goddamn internet break and work on your communication skills

Your “state oppression” is my “collecting taxes, enacting gun legislation, providing public services and enforcing age of consent laws” and to tell you the truth that sounds pretty good to me

It’s incredible. “That’s lovely”, the flavor. “That’s better”, the dulling of the pain of existence. art

NYT tomorrow: “Harris under fire for [placeholder] after controversial Trump radio interview”