- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Summary
Trump just presided over one of the greatest diplomatic disasters in modern history, with flared tempers, raised voices, and shredded protocol.
Never before has a U.S. president bullied and berated an adversary, never mind an ally, in such a public way.
During a tense Oval Office meeting, Trump and JD Vance attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanding he accept a peace deal with Russia or lose U.S. support.
The conversation devolved into shouting, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of being ungrateful and “gambling with World War III.”
The meeting ended in chaos, with no agreement reached.
Or just use ranked voting or rated voting. Single winner doesn’t imply the god awful first-past-the-post method
Sure, that lets people vote for who they want and still vote for someone that will actually win in a larger election, maybe pick up some more local offices.
Frankly Democrats should be big on RCV. The hard right and moderate right vote together, but the progressive is more split and a larger chunk refuses to vote strategically, at least if that is their only vote. RCV gives then the ability to vote the way they want to and still vote for a candidate with more broad acceptance.
Not sure it would have done anything in this presidential race, since there’s no sign of third party vote being enough to change things in any remotely close state. It might have at least relieved the vitriol between would be allies over Democrat voters refusing to vote with the harder left versus the further left refusing to vote strategically with the Democrats.
There would remain the hopefully miniscule but very loud progressives that think either the electorate goes perfectly for their perfect candidate, or else someone like Trump should win to teach those voters a lesson, and maybe break things so hard that a path forward for their favored leaders to get in power.