[iknowstuff]

I certainly see the vitriol against the US on r/europe which seems like it has more news about the United States than Europe.

Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.

You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

[apparent]

> You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened. The majority of people voted for someone else, but he got votes from more people than any other candidate did.

Of course, what really matters is the electoral college, but the popular vote is often seen as lending even more legitimacy to a victory.

[xp84]

The reason it doesn’t matter is that everyone who chooses to vote third party does so fully knowing who the two front runners are, as well as the likely margin of their state. Most third-party voters are in extremely uncompetitive states, making it quite safe to make a statement vote, even though it potentially dampens your “lesser of two evils” candidate’s apparent mandate.

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

[tracker1]

This is very true... I used to vote Libertarian for all races where there was a Libertarian candidate... then my state shifted purple, and I'd rather see a Republican more often than not over a given Democrat candidate. While I don't agree with the actual far right fringe, I cannot vote for a party with prominent communists in it.

[apparent]

I agree that most people who vote for other candidates come from uncompetitive states. But this doesn't necessarily prove your point. If there were more other-candidate supporters who would have voted for Kamala (if they had to vote for one of the two main candidates) than Trump, then that would mean he wouldn't have won the popular vote if it was just between the two of them.

Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!

[JCattheATM]

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

[pepperball]

Don’t worry, the next out-of-touch geezer you run will definitely have the charisma to win. It looks like they may be up against JD Vance for Christ’s sake.

[JCattheATM]

At this point the bar is so low, who knows? A criminal rapist fraudster grifter won and continues to have enthusiastic support. Personally, I blame religion for strengthening those tribalism neural pathways and eroding critical thinking abilities.

[rolymath]

Critical thinking comes later, not before. So religion doesn't erode them, but delays them.

Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.

Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.

Lastly, Kamala got something like 0 votes in the primary. Wishing she would win the general election was delusional. Dems should themselves in the foot twice vs Trump with Kamala and when they betrayed Bernie to help Hillary.

You should engage in some critical thinking yourself instead of blasting your insecurities over the internet. Your media diet (bet $1000 that reddit is a big part) needs a do-over.

[JCattheATM]

> Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened.

Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.

[apparent]

I agree that some people use the phrase loosely. I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not. It's not a "super-majority" situation, IMO. But surely it's worthwhile to have a different way of referring to the two cases, especially now that the less-common one has happened in recent history.

[JCattheATM]

> I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not.

This is like asking someone to distinguish between a hypothesis of who killed JFK when they say they have a theory of who did. You're mixing the colloquial usage for no reason.

Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language, it means 'the most'. Trump got the most votes of any one candidate.

[apparent]

> Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language

I guess it depends on whom you hang out with and talk to. I completely agree that some people can't understand the difference and speak accordingly. But I don't think we should redefine words based on the lowest common denominator of understanding/usage.

And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority. That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.

[JCattheATM]

> But I don't think we should redefine words based on the lowest common denominator of understanding/usage.

No one is redefining anything. Merriam-Webster and Oxford both have a definition for majority meaning most, and that's the more common definition that is used in everyday speech.

Context matters.

> And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority.

In this context, talking about the popular vote, no information is lost, nothing is miscommunicated by using the word majority and understanding how people are using it. Which, by the way, they are using correctly as per dictionary definitions.

> That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.

No, but it's the same as per my example in that you are being pedantic about a word in a way that serves no purpose, except maybe to try and make people feel stupid.

[jablongo]

Trump received 77.3M votes while Kamala received 75M. Since the total was 156.7M it was barely a plurality instead of a majority (just under 50%).

[elcritch]

All while Europe dabbles in outlawing and criminalizing opposition parties they’re deeming “far right”. Sure anyone who opposes unlimited unrestricted immigration is now “far right”. Regardless of opinion, democracy is about the people determining that conversation, not politburos.

Alternatively the UK violating the millennia old Magna Carta by halting jury trials for criminal offenses with less than 2 years of jail time.

[bborud]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. And unlike the US during the 20th century, Europe has actually had to contend with the far right abolishing democracy and committing genocide on its own population before. It is understandable that Europe doesn't want to repeat that mistake.

As for your assertion that anyone who opposes unlimited unrestricted immigration is somehow far right: you are simply wrong.

If you want to find out how wrong you are I would encourage you to try moving to Norway. Then tell me if the process feels "unrestricted".

I would suggest knowing things before you express strong opinions.

[immibis]

If you're still treating Reddit, especially large subreddits, as a serious source of information rather than an extremely manipulated outlet of 90% propaganda bots, that is quite foolish.

Maybe I should make a website where example.com/e/Europe shows whatever I want people to think Europe thinks, and people will treat it as an authority for some reason? That's basically what you're doing with Reddit.

[bborud]

But people do treat sites such as reddit as a source of truth. That's part of the problem.

[array_key_first]

Yes, clearly the russian bots are running a campaign against Trump, the most explicitly pro-Russia president we've had in decades. Donald "Ukraine started the war" Trump.

[mindslight]

The goal isn't to help one coherent team win, but rather to foment division that undermines cohesive action. This is also an attractor for anybody interested in neutralizing democratic governments, be it Russia or simply corporations that don't want to be regulated as they gradually form more and more of their own government.

[vel0city]

It doesn't seem far fetched to me for Russia to further drive a wedge between the US and Europe.

I don't partake in that subreddit so I have no clue as to the content or if this claim is true or false but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea for Russia to do. Sure there's plenty of content Trump gives Russia to potentially amplify, but there could still be bots amplifying things and making some opinions or takes on a story be more popular than reality.

[iknowstuff]

I have no issue with critique of him and his admin, but r/europe is on a whole different “dismantle usa” level lol

[bborud]

Elected heads of state have moved towards totalitarian rule before.

Besides, elections isn’t what defines a functioning democracy.

Why do so many people fail to pay attention in history and civics class? And why do people get so upset when their ignorance is pointed out to them.

«He was elected» is not a justification. If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans. Be glad that hasn’t become worse.

[singpolyma3]

> If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans.

I have news for you...

[bborud]

If you sit people down and talk to them, I think you will find that most people around the world are actually able to distinguish between peoples and their governments. However when you look at what people say online, or when you ask groups of people, they do not always make the distinction.

The people who can not present a problem. Regardless of what pairing of nationalities.

[singpolyma3]

Sure but also tourists etc from USA give the country a bad name worldwide no matter who is in government in the country at the time.

[bborud]

What if it isn't? What if the sentiments expressed represent what Europeans think of the US?

[tracker1]

While there may be some truth to that (bots)... there are definitely a lot of quasi communists that are participating in these groups. They are active, involved and have an outsized influence in terms of being a squeaky wheel.

You just have to look at the protests in NYC over Venezuela to see it... they aren't actually for what the people of Venezuela seem to want (they're celebrating), the protestors are clearly pushing for and protecting at what represents communist values, even if Maduro isn't really much of a Communist.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Never forget that the largest share of the 2024 US voting-eligible population went to "did not vote".

Harris received 97% of Trump's vote count.

There is not that strong a popular mandate for Trump, which shows in his approval ratings.

[Loudergood]

They made their choice. It's damning for the Democrats that they couldn't engage more of them.

[LanceH]

You could start with none of them voting for their presidential candidate to be nominated.

The Democratic Party is at odds with Democrats, in my opinion. They just don't want to let anyone but the party itself pick the candidate, then are surprised when their own voters don't feel the candidate is theirs.

Obama was nominated in spite of the party, and people showed up for him.

Trump is awful, but losing to him twice is unfathomably stupid.

[stodor89]

The US must end the bipartisan model before the bipartisan model ends the US.

There, I said it.

[rayiner]

Multiple polls have found that Trump would have won by an even larger margin if those people had voted.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...

https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

And yet, they did not vote. People often say things in polls that don't align to their actions.

[rayiner]

Sure. But polling has consistently underestimated Trump voters, including in this most recent election.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Yeah, polls are limited in a variety of ways. The election results at least represent when someone took some amount of effort to vote.

2024 eligible voters: 244,666,890

2024 ballots cast: 156,766,239. 64% of eligible voters cast a vote

Trump votes: 77,284,118. 49.2% of votes cast, 31.6% of eligible voters

Harris votes: 74,999,166. 47.8% of votes cast, 30.6% of eligible voters

Trump got 1% more of the eligible voting population to go through the effort of casting a vote. That's not nothing, and it put him in office, but it's not a landslide that grants him an unquestionable public mandate.

[rayiner]

I didn't say it was a landslide. The electorate is closely divided. But saying "most people didn't vote for Trump" makes it seem like they wouldn't have voted for him if they had to choose. And the data we have points in exactly the opposite direction. The pool of non-voters is low trust and cynical about American institutions. In that regard, they are more Trumpy than the electorate as a whole. In the Blue Rose study, Harris would have won if only 2022 midterm voters had voted in 2024. And if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by almost 5 points.

Making assumptions that non-voters would or would not support particular policies is erroneous. Harvard-Harris did a poll question on this last month, and found that 76% of Americans supported the U.S. arresting Maduro and bringing him to stand trial in the U.S.: https://harvardharrispoll.com/press-release-december-2025. That means most Americans are further to the right on this issue than a bunch of isolationist conservatives who voted for Trump.

[bborud]

Well, then I'd first have to ask how you define "communist" or "quasi-communist" to understand what you mean. The term "communist" means different things depending on the context of the person who uses that term.

[jibal]

> I certainly see the vitriol against the US on r/europe which seems like it has more news about the United States than Europe.

Nonsense.

> Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.

Rational people can.

> the president won the popular vote

False.

[lp0_on_fire]

> False

Trump won the popular vote in 2024. He lost it in 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections

[xp84]

Oh, so we’re just making up our reality now? Biden and Trump each won the popular vote and to suggest otherwise would require a belief in a colossal conspiracy theory.

[myko]

trump was ineligible due to his attempted insurrection on Jan 6th, end of story

[DaSHacka]

Evidently the country's people, and government, disagree with you.