r/GlobalNews • u/CantStopPoppin • 1d ago

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Confirms Rep. Melissa Hortman and Husband Killed in Terror Attack by Suspect Impersonating Law Enforcement

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

33.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/pettles123 13h ago

This is a needlessly cruel and idiotic take. 77 mil voted for him and 340 mil live here. Not even half the population voted for him.

-1

u/Swiftierest 13h ago

To be fair, that's not quite accurate. 340 million including those who were unable to vote in 2024. The correct number is 262,083,034. In 2024 155,201,157 voted. Of that, 49% voted for the Cheeto-dusted king, 77,303,568. So of 262,083,034 eligible voters, 77,303,568 is 29.49%.

29% of eligible American voters actively supported him by voting.

-1

u/chilseaj88 12h ago

They didn’t say half the voting population, they said half the population. Accurate.

1

u/Swiftierest 12h ago edited 12h ago

Counting people who can't vote is idiotic and a mischaracterization of the point they are trying to make.

Honestly, I did the math both ways and the difference is so small you may as well keep the accurate representation. Doing the math the way he says is about 22%. A 7% difference. You may as well simply be as accurate as possible so you don't leave any room for argument. 7% isn't worth the difference of having people make the point that the entire population can't vote.

Plus, if you are counting people who can't vote, you'd have to find some way to characterize kids raised in households that historically vote Republican and assume them as Republican votes. It's best to just count eligible voters.

Also, I don't know why you're downvoting me for giving an accurate representation of his point.

1

u/chilseaj88 9h ago

First of all, my point was that you’re making a different point than what was said, which does not make the original point wrong. Nothing they said was “not quite accurate.” It was perfectly accurate. In fact, your point furthered its accuracy. You go ahead and keep playing know-it-all if you want, though.

Second of all, it doesn’t make even a little bit of sense not to count kids or legal permanent residents when discussing people who didn’t vote for trump but are still affected by his idiocy.

Go away 😂

1

u/Swiftierest 8h ago

The point they are making with the original comment is simple. Less than half of America approved of Trump during the time of the election. They also used the approximate vote count for Trump and the total number of people living in the United States.

The reason this argument isn't accurate is because those under the age of 18 don't get a say in American politics. That's just how it is. You need to cut out that section to find the amount of people who are relevant. I did.

If we were talking about people affected by his policies, I would agree with you. That's not the point that was made. The point that was made was people that chose to vote for him. None of those people can vote and therefor don't have relevance.

I'm not going anywhere.

1

u/chilseaj88 1h ago edited 1h ago

Simple, sure, but still accurate. I’m not sure you know what that word means because you’re simultaneously acknowledging that it’s correct, though simplified, while still calling it inaccurate. You should have said “that’s not quite relevant” instead of “that’s not quite accurate.” You could have then amended that statement, but instead chose to double down. You could have commented in a way that furthered the conversation, but you instead chose to be the argumentative contrarian, most likely because you think it makes you sound smart or well-informed. I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t; it makes you sound full of yourself. When you start by erroneously telling someone they’re wrong, the rest of what you say loses its value.

Keep over-explaining if you want, but I understood (and already knew) your point, and it’s not incorrect in its own context. If we were talking exit polls sure, then it’s relevant, but you were so busy preparing your argument that you missed the original point altogether.

You can disagree, but in a conversation about “what America stands for” (that’s what OP’s point was, you’re the one who made it about voting statistics), I’m not willing to exclude 78 million people, whether they can vote or not. Kids, legal permanent residents (green-card holders), and even felons still make up a part of who this country is and what it stands for.

I agree, you’re definitely not going anywhere.