Biden 'not confident' of peaceful transition if Trump loses
Biden 'not confident' of peaceful transition if Trump loses
In his first interview since he dropped out of the race, the president says he is concerned about the transfer of power.
US President Joe Biden has said he is not confident there will be a peaceful transition of power if Donald Trump loses the presidential election in November.
"[Trump] means what he says, we don’t take him seriously. He means it, all this stuff about ‘if we lose it will be a bloodbath’.”
Mr Trump’s comment that it would “be a bloodbath for the country” if he loses the election, made as he was talking about the auto industry in March, triggered a wave of criticism.
The Trump campaign, however, said the comment was specifically about the auto industry and had been deliberately taken out of context. It sent a fundraising email which said Trump’s political opponents and others had been "viciously" misquoting him.
You're viewing part of a thread.
It’s hilarious that you consider the shit you’ve posted as “sources” as most of this is bottom-barrel definitions. There were some actual sources regarding implementation, which are interesting, but I see no gain in opening up a system that is already incredibly abused. Everyone always skips the whole “getting money out of politics” angle, and somehow believe this system will rid them of that.
I'm lost, you can read my responses but not my sources.... I think it might be reading comprehension and not literacy that is your problem.
As per NPR, my point:
But in practice, research has found that the voters who actually take advantage of the ranking opportunities tend to be white voters, and affluent voters with more education.
"So it's kind of continuing and appearing to multiply the disparities in our current democracy," Jacobs said. "We need to be clear when we say 'democracy' that we mean a system in which there is equal participation."
Andrea Benjamin, an expert on race and voting behavior at the University of Oklahoma, agrees. She's optimistic about the potential of ranked choice voting to improve representation in the U.S., but at the end of the day, any real transformative change to the political system will only come from higher voter turnout. You can change vote-tallying methods all you want, she said, but it's still just a snapshot of the most motivated sliver of the population.
Would you like me to continue to read your sources, and point out how this is just some gimmick that they’ll abuse just as easily? “In theory”… I mean in theory Donald Trump should be executed for high crimes against the USA. Those documents he stole, the bribes, dude didn’t even sell his company. It’s ridiculous. And you say that’s wanting violence? In theory, I just want the law upheld. But in practice…
That's a good start, now follow up with the rest of the context of the many links I posted.
Also I'm curious you haven't answered any of my question about why your account is only 3 days old and have such a strong opinion on American politics.
I dont' know who's doing it but please stop down voting @glizzard@lemmy.ca . You're only hiding the slow progress they're making.
I only downvoted like once or twice, and they were times they were legitimately useless. Hilarious you’d call it out when you’re clearly downvoting my content immediately.
Because I just joined this website. Because it has content now, that’s generally up to date. It’s a crime, mr officer, to be a young account and be disagreeable.
I'm not downvoting you, and I didn't say anything about you downvoting me.
No I'm suspicious of young accounts that have such strong opinions on countries they don't live in.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57558028
I'm sure you can understand why
Okay mister “random letters that can’t accept a differing opinion and replies with random shitty links to make his point look better”, I definitely understand
Satire as progress, is this more of the nuanced take that is supposed to sway me away from pluralistic democracy?
I’m literally just saying that pushing for Ranked Choice voting in a hyper-capitalist, hyper-lobbied environment like America would simply reinforce the goals of neo-liberals. Unless you’re posting all of this in irony? Because you’re the botnet? And that’s why you have to call lit the downvotes? Like why even invoke that? Because youre a bot?
You sure do project a lot.
You repeat republican talking points.
Say that you don't' want moderate candidates.
Are you familiar with logical fallacies? You've hit like five in our conversation already. Notably
Tu Quoque
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
Hasty Generalization
and most notably the False Dilemma that since Ranked Choice doesn't work in one tiny part of Canadian politics it won't work in American politics. How do you think the US will get any of these changes done with more candidates like Trump and Harris? You misread the definition of moderate, it means that there will be a more unified approach to government and generally agreed upon changes will happen in the US, things like Taxing the Rich, Reversing Citizens United, Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices.
Since you're fond of Bots and AI here's a very simplified list of common Fallacies written by some LLM or another https://academicinfluence.com/inflection/study-guides/logical-fallacies
See I have to post references for you about American politics because you don't live here, and I don't think you understand what we're facing as a country. https://theconversation.com/surprise-american-voters-actually-largely-agree-on-many-issues-including-topics-like-abortion-immigration-and-wealth-inequality-229458
Lmfao bro I’m just trying to say it seems like cute bullshit, a massive herring that’d be so hard to implement then just makes it worse. And all I said was I’ve seen how it can make it worse. Like maybe there are waaaay bigger fish… and you say this would get you there. I just don’t feel it will. And that’s all said. I mean you talk about manufacturing consent. Do you think they’re manufacturing your consent for ranked voting? What’s real? Man who fucking knows the definition of words? Ohh gotcha, I used THIS definition of the word! Well, you're a cocksucker. Don’t worry, my definition is really nice
I don’t need your introductions to ranked voting. I can see the point. But bot when all the other shit exists, too. There’s an order to this shit, and giving extra levers to those that don’t want democracy isn’t helpful either
I think you might, because you're parroting the point of the very people you're saying are "poisoning the pool "as you say.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/ranked-choice-voting-elections.html
And again, here you can read this one in private. I won't tell anyone.
https://triblive.com/opinion/tyler-cowen-want-more-moderate-candidates-demand-ranked-choice-voting/
I literally do not want more moderate candidates. Do you not see that is my point? If you push towards moderation when the average is slewed towards “anarcho-capitalism”, you’re going to keep pushing that direction.
So Trump, that's a moderate candidate? That's what FPTP has gotten us.
You also don't understand the Overton Window as it's a general trend. Also how it's a product of a binary choice that's referenced by Duverger's Law. I've literally laid out my whole political theory in support of Pluralistic Democracy and how the fastest way for America to get there is RCV.
Your response to all of this is that links are hard and you've only directly responded to a cherry picked comment from a political scientist that was cautious about saying RCV will definitely cure America's electoral problems.
Again, you would be better served to look at any of the materials I've provided you.
No, that’s what the Electoral College got you. Not FPTP. That’d be Hillary. She won the majority, was first past the post. But in America, you use FPTP and take all the posts and count them differently.
You’re totally misconstruing “the overton window”, jesus christ. My point, is that there is no point in implementing some RC system when only the Democrats and Republicans exist in an ecosystem where companies and people can openly purchase politicians.
All of these ideas make sense on paper, because they all assume the electoral system isn’t completely infected with money. This would simply add another layer to make it harder to remove it. You have to remove the money first, then complicate the system.
I can only see this via the Republican party being completely decimated, and replaced by a contingent of 3-5 parties splitting from the Democrat ticket after they secure enough of a majority to fix the constitution. If they cant do that, it should never happen
Please stick to the single stream of our topic. I'm not going to discuss this with you across multiple comments. I'm researching my responses so that I can provide you sources in good faith. If you'd rather just knock over the pieces and shit on the board feel free.