8 ms·

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 orchest

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

bborud 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans. I have news for you...
  - bborud 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
      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.
Braxton1980 10mo ago
[flagged]
- userbinator 10mo ago
  Show me a politician who hasn't lied.
  - NicoJuicy 10mo ago
    Show me anyone who lies even 10% of Trump Ps. Firehose of falsehoods is a Russian propaganda technique. Whataboutism too 1 lie doesn't compare to the plethora of Trumps lies
  - jibal 10mo ago
    Whataboutism is a fallacy.
elcritch 10mo ago
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.
- jibal 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - elcritch 10mo ago
    The comment I was replying to is also whataboutism from Europe. It was Nazi's who didn't like free speech. Shutting down any sort of debate by yelling "far-right" at everything isn't a functioning democracy either. My grandfather tried to fight in WWII against the actual Nazis, but his politics would be labelled "far-right" now. That's just absurd.
  - jibal 10mo ago
    > The comment I was replying to *is also* whataboutism Whoosh.
- bborud 9mo ago
  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.
sjsdaiuasgdia 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  They made their choice. It's damning for the Democrats that they couldn't engage more of them.
  - LanceH 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
    The US must end the bipartisan model before the bipartisan model ends the US. There, I said it.
- rayiner 10mo ago
  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-election-non-voters-coalition https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 10mo ago
    And yet, they did not vote. People often say things in polls that don't align to their actions.
michaelt 10mo ago
[flagged]
- stickfigure 10mo ago
  There's Option 3: Trump built a campaign on lies, a significant minority of the American public were gullible enough to believe him, and many of those people regret it. Option 3 is consistent with national polls. This fact is not flattering to the American public, but it's also not damning. Unfortunately, our electoral system has a slow cycle rate so we're stuck with the consequences for a while. Assuming you are European, I can only offer these small words of consolation: I feel confident that a significant factor Trump's plummeting approval ratings is his anti-Europe and pro-Russian rhetoric. Everyone was pretty aghast when Trump declared the new public enemies (Canada and Greenland) on his first day in office. Americans generally have very positive feelings towards Europe. We all just need to make it through the next three years.
- mensetmanusman 10mo ago
  But #1 is so poorly framed, you would think it would be written by someone who only knows America via the corporate media.
array_key_first 10mo ago
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.
- iknowstuff 10mo ago
  I have no issue with critique of him and his admin, but r/europe is on a whole different “dismantle usa” level lol
- vel0city 10mo ago
  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.
- mindslight 10mo ago
  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.
apparent 10mo ago
> 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 10mo ago
  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.
  - apparent 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
    > 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.
jibal 10mo ago
> 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 10mo ago
  > 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/2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections
- xp84 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
trump was ineligible due to his attempted insurrection on Jan 6th, end of story
- DaSHacka 10mo ago
  Evidently the country's people, and government, disagree with you.
immibis 10mo ago
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 9mo ago
  But people do treat sites such as reddit as a source of truth. That's part of the problem.
tracker1 10mo ago
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.
bborud 9mo ago
What if it isn't? What if the sentiments expressed represent what Europeans think of the US?

bborud 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
> If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans. I have news for you...
- bborud 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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.

Braxton1980 10mo ago

[flagged]

userbinator 10mo ago
Show me a politician who hasn't lied.
- NicoJuicy 10mo ago
  Show me anyone who lies even 10% of Trump Ps. Firehose of falsehoods is a Russian propaganda technique. Whataboutism too 1 lie doesn't compare to the plethora of Trumps lies
- jibal 10mo ago
  Whataboutism is a fallacy.

elcritch 10mo ago

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.

jibal 10mo ago
[flagged]
- elcritch 10mo ago
  The comment I was replying to is also whataboutism from Europe. It was Nazi's who didn't like free speech. Shutting down any sort of debate by yelling "far-right" at everything isn't a functioning democracy either. My grandfather tried to fight in WWII against the actual Nazis, but his politics would be labelled "far-right" now. That's just absurd.
- jibal 10mo ago
  > The comment I was replying to *is also* whataboutism Whoosh.
bborud 9mo ago
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.

sjsdaiuasgdia 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
They made their choice. It's damning for the Democrats that they couldn't engage more of them.
- LanceH 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  The US must end the bipartisan model before the bipartisan model ends the US. There, I said it.
rayiner 10mo ago
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-election-non-voters-coalition https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...
- sjsdaiuasgdia 10mo ago
  And yet, they did not vote. People often say things in polls that don't align to their actions.

michaelt 10mo ago

[flagged]

stickfigure 10mo ago
There's Option 3: Trump built a campaign on lies, a significant minority of the American public were gullible enough to believe him, and many of those people regret it. Option 3 is consistent with national polls. This fact is not flattering to the American public, but it's also not damning. Unfortunately, our electoral system has a slow cycle rate so we're stuck with the consequences for a while. Assuming you are European, I can only offer these small words of consolation: I feel confident that a significant factor Trump's plummeting approval ratings is his anti-Europe and pro-Russian rhetoric. Everyone was pretty aghast when Trump declared the new public enemies (Canada and Greenland) on his first day in office. Americans generally have very positive feelings towards Europe. We all just need to make it through the next three years.
mensetmanusman 10mo ago
But #1 is so poorly framed, you would think it would be written by someone who only knows America via the corporate media.

array_key_first 10mo ago

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.

iknowstuff 10mo ago
I have no issue with critique of him and his admin, but r/europe is on a whole different “dismantle usa” level lol
vel0city 10mo ago
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.
mindslight 10mo ago
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.

apparent 10mo ago

> 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 10mo ago
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.
- apparent 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  > 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.

jibal 10mo ago

> 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 10mo ago
> 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/2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections
xp84 10mo ago
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 10mo ago

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

DaSHacka 10mo ago
Evidently the country's people, and government, disagree with you.

immibis 10mo ago

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 9mo ago
But people do treat sites such as reddit as a source of truth. That's part of the problem.

tracker1 10mo ago

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.

bborud 9mo ago

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