Donald Trump's lies

The point about the demonstrations was that they were outside the convention, and what they were demanding is not Democratic Party Policy, which has quite centrist views as has been pointed out.

To listen to what the Democrats do stand for, there are many good videos and commentary on CNN.

I have no great regards for the americans but the thought that people could actually vote for this appalling lying, lunatic who thinks that the centre of the universe is himself, is just cringing, but a definite possibility. God help us all if he gets in.

Nor I.

I’m not sure how being a shouting supporter of the free Palestine / support Hamas makes anyone ‘far left’.

Freya5

Oreo

Babs03

I never fail to be surprised and amused by Trump accusing Kamala of being a radical far left politician. Fact is there is no far left radical or otherwise in the US, it just doesn’t exist. The Republicans are right wing and the Democrats are less so.

True, the Republicans are very right wing indeed and the Democrats more like Conservatives here.

Watching the far left wing mob outside the Democrats assembly in Chicago, I beg to differ.
Singing the racist song about exterminating Jewish people, flying terrorists Hamas flags , wearing terrorist Hamas uniforms, guess they're happy with murder of the captured hostages by Hamas. Smashing barriers down.
The whole thing was obscene. That's the far left in America.
Funny though flying a lgbt flag next to a hamas flag, do they realise what would happen to them if Hamas got hold of them.
They don't even know which river they are talking about.
Such absolute ignoramuses.

Were they as obscene as the far right were when they stormed Capitol Freya5? Politics is a lot more extreme in the US whichever side they support, but comparing the show in Chicago today to that would surely be ludicrous?

Oreo

Babs03

I never fail to be surprised and amused by Trump accusing Kamala of being a radical far left politician. Fact is there is no far left radical or otherwise in the US, it just doesn’t exist. The Republicans are right wing and the Democrats are less so.

True, the Republicans are very right wing indeed and the Democrats more like Conservatives here.

Watching the far left wing mob outside the Democrats assembly in Chicago, I beg to differ.
Singing the racist song about exterminating Jewish people, flying terrorists Hamas flags , wearing terrorist Hamas uniforms, guess they're happy with murder of the captured hostages by Hamas. Smashing barriers down.
The whole thing was obscene. That's the far left in America.
Funny though flying a lgbt flag next to a hamas flag, do they realise what would happen to them if Hamas got hold of them.
They don't even know which river they are talking about.
Such absolute ignoramuses.

Also details of how the republicans/Trump attacking Harris including false AI imagery.

See also the Kamala Harris thread, where the democratic convention and Trump related material also there. (yes, the CNN website is very good)

RS and AC from The rest is politics was at the first day of the Democratic convention and have released a podcast on it. AC had read project 2025 whilst flying over to the US and the first half of the podcast was talking about that. Yup, it really reminded me of The Handmaids Tale! Thankfully, KH seems to be really rising to her new role and Trump seems unable to deal with her. If you go on the CNN website there's snatches of video from the first two days of the Convention which I found really interesting. Michelle and Barack Obama were very impressive!

They all tell lies, some more so than others. I have no faith in politicians. They get elected and do what they want not what the people want.

Quokka

Trump has mastered the art of appealing to the worst in people. The evangelist!

Like others before him he appeals to their innate fears, hates, stupidity and/or gullibility.

Seems it's the Republican platform that appeals - they don't appear to care that he's an unpleasant sexist misogynistic old man with a orange squirrel on his bronze head. They want less taxes, less programs, less governmental control. Control over female reproduction is not a worry, nor Paris Agreement, or NATO - Republicans seem to value isolationism and lower governmental spending, lower taxes.

Apparently HM also remarked that Trump and his wife seemed to have an "arrangement"

he DM reports that even the late Queen commneted on his rudeness. Shaking hands with her, but always looking over her shoulder to see if there was anyone else in the room he wanted to schmooze!

Thank you for the explanation regarding how the voting works in the US. It's not easy to understand at all. It makes our system seem so simple !

Trump has mastered the art of appealing to the worst in people. The evangelist!

Like others before him he appeals to their innate fears, hates, stupidity and/or gullibility.

Trump is running for President so he can avoid prison time for his felonies. He is off his rocker and it’s surprising that there are people who would vote for a criminal. It’s a horrible mess.

I do not like him.

I would not say they are like the Conservatives, who aim to privatise public services and cut taxes for the rich.

I would say the US Democrats are more like our Liberal Democrats, Having said that I'm a LibDem and my favourite US politician is Bernie Sanders. who is considered on the left of the Democrats, but I am probably on the left of the LibDems.

Babs03

I never fail to be surprised and amused by Trump accusing Kamala of being a radical far left politician. Fact is there is no far left radical or otherwise in the US, it just doesn’t exist. The Republicans are right wing and the Democrats are less so.

True, the Republicans are very right wing indeed and the Democrats more like Conservatives here.

Norah

Casdon

It a lot mor complex than the system in the UK. This is a good explanation from The Conversation, but it takes some getting your head around.
theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

Brilliant. Well explains the low population with higher electors/person apart from votes cast and popular vote.

I had to read it twice but think I’ve got it now.American politics is much more complex than ours.

Babs03

Trump and Musk, there are two men who should - as my old mum would say - find something better to do.

My old Mum still says it😁 my answer to ‘haven’t you got anything better to do’ was ‘yeah I’ve got more important things to do but nothing better’.

Thank you Siope that's really interesting.

Siope

Casdon Oh, bother. I did, then decided it was a bit biased, and meant to delete the last few words. I will try to find a straightforward fair explanation.

Maisie, I believe so.

Notah, the three-fifths ‘compromise’ was used to settle a row between free states (those where slavery was banned, mostly in the north) and slave-owning states over how population should be counted for deciding how many congressmen and Electors a state had. The free states said the whole population, the slave states wanted to exclude slaves. So the ‘compromise’ was that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person. This increased the voting power of white slave owners (slaves couldn’t vote anyway) and generally, Northern states which had (and have) higher white populations. The amendment was amended a few times later, but the uneven distribution of Electors remains an issue - it’s why so few states (mostly still majority white) can swing the Presidential election. It’s a bit - a lot - more complicated than that, because of population numbers then, but that’s the essential basic explanation.

Thank you.

When we've lived in America (holidays, tkr and other medical needs) I always study fascinating history classes. I've never learnt about 3/5 of a person. Perhaps civil war history (and later) should be next.

Casdon Oh, bother. I did, then decided it was a bit biased, and meant to delete the last few words. I will try to find a straightforward fair explanation.

Maisie, I believe so.

Notah, the three-fifths ‘compromise’ was used to settle a row between free states (those where slavery was banned, mostly in the north) and slave-owning states over how population should be counted for deciding how many congressmen and Electors a state had. The free states said the whole population, the slave states wanted to exclude slaves. So the ‘compromise’ was that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person. This increased the voting power of white slave owners (slaves couldn’t vote anyway) and generally, Northern states which had (and have) higher white populations. The amendment was amended a few times later, but the uneven distribution of Electors remains an issue - it’s why so few states (mostly still majority white) can swing the Presidential election. It’s a bit - a lot - more complicated than that, because of population numbers then, but that’s the essential basic explanation.

Siope

I’m afraid it’s not a good explanation of the impacts. It’s neat, as a mathematical model, but ignores the structural inequalities of the EC. It glosses over, for example, the distorted impact of having electors per senator (because the spread of senators is a scandal in itself: eg, the combined population of 15 states – Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina – is around 38 million people. These citizens are represented in the US Senate by 30 senators, even though their combined population is less than that of California which has just two senators.

Neither does the article even touch on the original three-fifths rule, which still impacts heavily by boosting the white vote, nor on how it gives disproportionate influence to particular states.

There is a good explanation of the

I think that finding a simple explanation that covers all aspects is quite difficult Siope, and in fairness to The Conversation I don’t think they were aiming to do more than provide a basic explanation of how the system works - which was enough as a starter for my simple brain to grasp. I think you intended at the ned of your post to attach something with more substance for those of us who have now got the basics, I’d like to read it if so?