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.

  • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • glizzard@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • glizzard@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Lmfao you’re trash, this is my cellphone, you like to make fun of people for getting names wrong and now you cry cause comments are in two threads. Get over yourself mr botnet

          • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Name calling, projection, personal identity indiscernible from personal politics, making excuses for not being able to make a cogent argument. Are you sure you’re not American?