This Trump Supporter Listed 10 Reasons Why They Regret Their Vote, And People Have NO Sympathy
The list was posted in the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit, where you can often find Trump supporters coming to the conclusion (finally!) that the orange man just miiiiight have been the wrong choice for the country. Let's go through the list one by one:
1."Prices are all rising."
From Walmart to Best Buy to Autozone, companies across the board spoke about likely needing to increase consumer prices to cover the cost of Trump's tariffs before he instated a 90-day pause. According to NPR, we can expect more expensive groceries, too, if the pause lifts. Seafood will be hit especially hard since the US imports up to 85% of it. Other imported grocery items that will likely rise in cost include fruit, cheese, nuts, coffee, olive oil, chocolate, beer, and wine. AP also listed clothing, cars, pharmacy orders, electronics, and household appliances as items that will likely see increases. Sooo basically everything! Thanks, Trump!
2."401(k)s are tanking."
Following Trump's tariffs and the resultant uncertainty about the future of global trade, last week was officially the worst week for the US stock market since 2020, during the pandemic. IDK about you, but I am NOT having a good time looking at my retirement accounts (which were already behind for my age, TBH). On Wednesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that he authorized a 90-day pause on tariffs, and the market rallied hard — so we'll see what happens in the coming months.
3."We're headed into recession."
For the second time in a week (!!!), Goldman Sachs increased our likelihood of a recession. We went from 20% to 35% to now 45%. Economists, analysts, and CEOs are worried, citing uncertainty around the tariffs, retaliatory tariffs from other countries, and plummeting consumer confidence.
4."Musk laying off hardworking Americans."
DOGE has reportedly laid off over 280,000 federal workers and contractors so far. March was apparently the third-highest month for job cuts on record — with the top two months being April and May 2020 due to COVID — in large part because of DOGE.
5."DOGE laying off veterans who fought for our country."
Thousands of veterans have been laid off by DOGE, and Democrats are demanding that the White House reveal precise numbers. The administration is also reportedly planning to cut over 80,000 jobs from the Department of Veteran Affairs.
6."Soft on Russia; Putin playing Trump like a puppet."
Trump has a long, documented relationship with the Russian president and has called him "so nice" on several occasions. Many people pointed out that Russia was missing from the list of countries facing the ridiculous new tariffs. What a surprise!
7."Lost all our allies."
While pretty much all of our international relationships are strained right now, Canada is probably the best example. Trump has continually spoken about making the country our 51st state, declared 25% tariffs for no good reason, and motivated many Canadians to boycott American products and cancel vacations here. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said that Canada's previous relationship with the US is "over."
8."Incompetent idiots running defense."
In a scandal that has somehow already blown over (???), Former Fox News host and current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, along with several other high-ranking officials like Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, seemingly didn't notice Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the group chat while they messaged about WAR PLANS. Even worse, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz was reportedly the one who invited Jeffrey.
9."Kids dying of measles for first time in a century."
This week, a second child died of the recent measles outbreak in Texas. The girl was not vaccinated, and nearly 500 people have been infected in the state this year.
10.And finally, "Billionaires paying for votes."
Amid a Wisconsin supreme court election, Elon gave out two $1 million checks to voters last month while supporting the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel — who ended up losing to liberal Susan Crawford anyway! During her victory speech, she said, "Our courts are not for sale." 👏👏👏
At the end of the list, the former MAGA supporter wrote, "I now regret my vote for Trump." Obviously, people in the comments had a lot to say about all this!
"I'm sorry, but ALL of them were on open display during the campaign trail," u/Selbeast wrote. "None of this should be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. It was widely predicted that prices would rise because of tariffs, that the stroke stock market would tank, that a recession would become more likely, that our allies would not get along with Trump, that a drunkard of a journalist wasn't a good choice for defense, that anti-vax nonsense would eventually result in an increase in diseases like measles. All of it. Completely unsurprising."
"Hope the consequences hit him twice as hard," added u/Gadshill.
"Please note that NONE of those things were in any way unexpected, but in some cases, even campaigned on. That guy is an idiot," said u/FangGore.
U/RyotheFox said, "Absolute bullshit that Kamala Harris didn't get some people's votes over one thing, yet this person finally breaks from Donald after having to compile a laundry list of things."
U/NewManufacturer4252 asked a great question: "Why did a quarter of the country not believe him, when this is exactly what he said he would do?"
And u/PhoenixTineldyer simply wrote, "WHY ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID."
Do you know any Trump supporters who regret their vote? What was the last straw for them? Share in the comments or in the anonymous Google form below:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Mexico 90-day tariff reprieve as deadline for higher duties looms
By David Lawder and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline. The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the Trump call was "very good." Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry. Trump said that the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details. Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) deadline. South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump. But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil. Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee. TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies. The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing. CHINA DEAL NOT DONE U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is "not 100% done," and still needs Trump's approval. U.S. negotiators "pushed back quite a bit" over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Key inflation gauge picks up on goods, spending barely rises
The Federal Reserve's preferred measure of underlying inflation increased in June at one of the fastest paces this year while consumer spending barely rose, underscoring the dueling forces dividing policymakers over the path of interest rates. The so-called core personal consumption expenditures price index, which excludes food and energy items, rose 0.3% from May, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data out Thursday. It advanced 2.8% on an annual basis, a pickup from June 2024 that underscores limited progress on taming inflation in the past year. The data also showed inflation-adjusted consumer spending edged up last month after declining in May. The data illustrate the tug and pull in the economy that has Fed officials split over the course of monetary policy. On the one hand, progress on inflation has essentially stalled and central bankers fear that President Donald Trump's tariffs — some of which are already being passed on to consumers — will exert greater pressure on prices. On the other, a retrenchment in consumer spending due to a softening labor market risks a broader slowdown in the economy. The Fed kept borrowing costs unchanged for a fifth straight meeting on Wednesday, though two governors dissented in favor of a quarter-point cut. Chair Jerome Powell was staunch in his defense of a solid labor market and upside risks to inflation that support keeping rates steady for now. 'Weaker consumer spending and an upturn in goods prices due to tariffs could further complicate Fed policy,' Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a note. 'We will need to see either calmer inflation figures or weaker growth/softer job conditions to spur a rate cut on September 17.' The S&P 500 rose, Treasury yields declined and the dollar advanced after the report. The figures round out the softest consecutive quarters of growth in consumer spending since the pandemic. The gain in June spending reflected a rebound in outlays for non-durable goods. Purchases of durable goods fell for a third month — the longest stretch since 2021 — and outlays for services were tame, indicating weak discretionary spending. What Bloomberg Economics Says... 'Consumers are becoming more discerning in their spending habits — spending relatively more on necessities — as firms test how much of the tariff cost they can pass along.' — Stuart Paul and Estelle Ou Underlying the weakness in spending is a cooling labor market. Real disposable income was flat after declining in May, while wages and salaries barely rose. The July jobs report due Friday is expected to show a continued moderation in hiring and a slight pickup in unemployment. The saving rate held at 4.5%. Separate data Thursday showed initial applications for unemployment insurance were little changed last week. Another report showed labor cost growth rose 3.6% from a year ago, matching the lowest since 2021, reassuring Fed officials that the job market isn't a source of inflationary pressure. Inflation in June was driven by a pickup in prices for goods, including household furnishings, sports equipment and clothes that indicates some pass-through of import duties to consumers. Last month's consumer price index also showed costs of commonly imported goods like toys and appliances rose firmly. A key metric of services inflation that excludes energy and housing rose 0.2% for a second month. The PCE inflation figures were largely known coming into this report, thanks to inputs from the CPI data, as well as details from the producer price index and quarterly figures in Wednesday's report on gross domestic product. Looking ahead, economists say there could be more upward pressure on inflation as Trump is expected to outline a new round of tariffs on Friday and a stock-market rally keeps a key PCE input elevated. Smith writes for Bloomberg.
