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.

  • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
    31·
    3 months ago

    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

    https://theconversation.com/political-trolls-adapt-create-material-to-deceive-and-confuse-the-public-135177

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-13-social-media-manipulation-political-actors-industrial-scale-problem-oxford-report

    I’m sure you can understand why

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        Satire as progress, is this more of the nuanced take that is supposed to sway me away from pluralistic democracy?

          • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 months ago

            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

              • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
                3·
                3 months ago

                You’re going for the full 30 standard logical fallacies, I understand the desire to be a completionist. The way you solve bigger fish is by getting candidates that will make those changes. You’re not going to get that with First Past the Post Voting.

                I’m not doing any of this for you. It’s proven that providing facts for people who disagree with you, ESPECIALLY those that tie their ego into being “right” in a discussion or argument, does not work. https://www.inc.com/james-sudakow/why-you-will-fail-to-persuade-people-90-of-the-time-if-you-only-use-logic.html/

                You literally don’t know what you don’t know. You might be interested in what’s commonly called the Dunning Kruger Effect. Here, this might help you understand that you don’t understand. https://nesslabs.com/dunning-kruger-effect

                I’m just putting together a long long long chain of responses to you, treating you much like an interactive prompt; to better form my argument and research what I’m saying. I literally do not care what you think about American Politics. You’re not able to effect any direct change. However, your confused and muddled view could be damaging to someone else. I’d like to avoid that if at all possible. Again, the only way America can get to RCV is if the momentum that started in 2020 continues and more states adopt it, so that there can be more call to implement it. And maybe, just maybe this fucking country I’ve lived in and fought for can finally start moving towards the 20th century and turn away from this path that’s dragging us closer to tech bro feudalism. https://www.wired.com/story/yanis-varoufakis-technofeudalism-interview/

                You are more than welcome to refute my points and continue this discussion. It’s been really cathartic for me.

                I’m just happy I exposed you to some things you previously weren’t aware of. I doubt you’ve read manufacturing consent, or looked at the broader sources I sent you. And happily got you to read at least one article about RCV in the US. I don’t care about being right, but I do care about sharing information and making sure that people can form and defend their own opinions.

                I hope things get better, just like you do. We don’t agree on how it’ll get done. But the more defensive you get, the more fun it is to poke you. I’m sorry for that. But I’m also happy that you’ve been exposed to a couple radical opinions, and a different point of view.