This Woman Wants To Know If She's The A**hole For Breaking Up With Her Trump-Supporting Boyfriend, And The Internet Isn't Holding Back
Today's installment involves politics and dating. This story comes from a 17-year-old woman who said, "So I started talking to this guy (16, male) around New Year's time. We hit it off and became official about a week later. When Trump was inaugurated, I debated with my mom and her boyfriend over his speech and what he wanted to do with his executive orders. I am very anti-Trump. I have even argued over Trump in my debate club at school many times."
"That night, I was on a call with my boyfriend telling him about the debate and how bad Trump's presidency would be, when he came out with, 'Is it a bad time to say I would've voted for Trump?' His exact words. This left me a bit blindsided. He told me how he liked Trump's economy and social relations. We stopped talking about it and went to sleep because he wanted to stop talking about it."
"I broke up with him anyway since there were other deciding factors. He got defensive, telling me it's not that big of a deal and that he's actually anti-government and doesn't know much about politics. When I told my mom and her boyfriend, they said I'm just a really opinionated person, and this isn't something I should break up with someone over. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but politics and stuff like what Trump wants to do are really important to me, even though I don't live in America. I think I made the right decision, but I still want to know, AITA?"
A LOT of people responded with a resounding 'NO,' saying she's not the asshole here. "This is a message that young people need to absorb. You can break up with someone for any reason. Sometimes that knowledge will help you avoid really bad situations," user CemeteryDweller7719 stressed.
"Supporting a fascist wannabe dictator is 100% a valid reason to kick his ass to the curb," user Jasmisne pointed out.
"You are kids and have been going out for a few weeks. You can break up with him for liking different pizza toppings if you want to," said user 6ft3dwarf.
"NO. And I hope your parents WAKE TF UP," said user La_Baraka6431.
"I'm contemplating divorce every time I get home from work and he's been watching Fox News all day 🙄," user SheepherderNo785 shared.
"You were right. Opposition to Trump is not only about policies. It's also about values and character. The Trump regime is far-right fascism; they keep proving it. People who choose to ignore that are like cult members," user RevolutionaryYouth88 said.
"Pretty hard to find someone attractive when they support policies that encourage the destruction of democratic norms, racism, sexism, violence against journalists, and the destabilization of world economies. Glad you can see through this MAGA cult! Keep on being 'really opinionated.' That is what the world needs right now!"
And user SkyLightk23 said they would've done the same thing. "I wouldn't want to fight every day over stuff like that. The original poster cares about politics, and her boyfriend says he doesn't, but he still has a strong opinion, which he is unwilling to change. He seems to care but doesn't want to fight with the original poster."
However, some people felt expecting their partner to align with them on every issue was unrealistic, like user CJaneNorman. "You also shouldn't expect to agree with someone on everything. If that's the expectation, then the original poster would end up single forever cause it just doesn't happen."
While user Empty_Try8500 said she's not the asshole, they also said this argument goes both ways. "He would also not be an asshole if he broke up with you for being a Kamala (or whoever) supporter."
"But for your own sake, you may want to stop obsessing over politics, especially in another country. And I hope you don't get into the pattern of cutting off people who disagree with you."
And user ECS0804 said there is one way she could be the asshole. "If you hold it against him like a grudge or something and stop being friends with him over it, then yes, you're the asshole. It happened to me, although with just regular friends."
And finally, "I think this growing trend of canceling your friends and even family members over their vote is very sad and disturbing," user pedsteve shared.
What do you think? Was her boyfriend's support of Trump a good enough reason to break up with him? Let us know in the comments.
Responses have been edited for length/clarity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
D.C. Mayor Calls Trump Takeover 'Un-American'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The mayor of Washington, D.C., has condemned the Trump administration's federal intervention in the city's policing, describing the deployment of troops to the capital as unpatriotic. "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican," Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside office hours. Why It Matters It comes after President Donald Trump said at a press conference on Monday that the city "has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people." Trump's intervention marks an unprecedented federal involvement in the local governance of the District of Columbia, using emergency powers that city officials and critics describe as a political power play. The deployment has sparked backlash over constitutional limits and home rule rights. Critics argue it breaches democratic principles and could set a dangerous national precedent, while supporters frame it as a necessary measure for public order. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Jose Luis Magana/AP What To Know On Tuesday, 800 National Guard troops arrived in Washington following an order from Trump. The deployment, aimed at addressing crime in the city, stands out as one of the most forceful federal actions in local policing in decades, even as crime rates have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years. Violent crime has plummeted by 26 percent this year compared with the same time last year, according to data from the Washington, D.C., police. Federal agents have been deployed in busy areas across the city, while National Guard troops patrol key locations such as the National Mall and Union Station. Washington officials filed a lawsuit against the administration in a bid to stop the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), according to court documents. Lawyers representing the Trump administration and Washington, D.C., reached a deal on Friday to partially roll back U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's directive that placed the city's police department under federal control. According to the new agreement, the D.C. police chief will continue to lead the Metropolitan Police Department, replacing Bondi's earlier decision to hand full authority to Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On Saturday, three Republican-led states announced plans to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to assist with the federal government's plans, according to statements released by the respective state governors. West Virginia said it would send 300 to 400 troops, South Carolina pledged 200, and Ohio announced it would deploy 150 troops in the coming days, representing an increase in the federal presence in the city. Hundreds of Washington, D.C. residents gathered in Dupont Circle on Saturday to protest Trump's federal takeover of local policing, marching 1.5 miles to the White House while carrying banners that read "No fascist takeover of D.C." In March, Trump signed an executive order titled "Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful." This directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to instruct the National Park Service to remove and clean up all homeless encampments located on federal land within the city that falls under the National Park Service's authority. The Trump administration's crackdown on homelessness in Washington, D.C., has led to the dismantling of numerous encampments across the city. What People Are Saying A White House spokesperson told Newsweek on August 16: "The National Guard will protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime." D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in an open letter to city residents: "Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety. President Donald Trump, on Truth Social: "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, at a press briefing: "Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services. If they refuse, they will be subjected to fines or jail time." What Happens Next Legal challenges to the federal takeover may be ongoing as the city attempts to wrestle control back from the president.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources
It isn't quite the ruckus involving the Jeffrey Epstein docs, but there is a quieter, more important conflict inside Trump world over weed — namely whether the president should legalize it and just how legal it should be, The Post has learned And according to my sources, Trump is in a compromising mood. He appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. Advertisement Trump is ready, several MAGA pro-pot sources tell me, to make a decision on at least reclassifying weed as a so-called Schedule III drug, putting it on par with semi-controlled substances like anabolic steroids. Not to get too far into the proverbial weeds, but Pot Inc. wants marijuana reclassified so it's not being lumped in with hard drugs like heroin — and it's a drama these pages first covered in late April. That way this booming business continues to grow with access to the banking system as cultural norms continue to shift and the majority of Americans see pot as no more dangerous than booze. Tax revenues would flow into federal coffers as the industry expands. Trump appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. AFP via Getty Images There are headwinds. Many MAGA types believe pot is leading to cultural rot. Breeding a population of stoners isn't good for the country since the pot today is far stronger than the joints Cheech & Chong rolled years ago. Advertisement Trump barely drinks and personally hates anything that dulls the senses. He's a law-and-order guy — witness his takeover of DC policing over quality-of-life issues, including the persistent smell of pot almost everywhere you walk. That said, the president seems to be leaning toward a compromise on federal legalization, including allowing for medical use based on evidence of its efficacy in severe pain relief. He's also said to be compelled by the business and the political argument of going soft on pot. He's done that before, doing his famous 180 on crypto for votes during the 2024 election and delivering with deregulation that is propelling the blockchain industry. Advertisement There are an estimated 17 million-plus Americans who use pot regularly, and Trump understands math. The pot lobby could help in key races as the midterms approach. MAGA loyalist Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and Trump's initial pick for attorney general, is one who believes embracing pot would further expand Trump's base among working-class people of all races, where pot u sage is most prevalent. 'President Trump would cement [these voters] for Republicans for 25 years by 'rescheduling' marijuana,' Gaetz said. 'Obama always wanted to do it but didn't have the balls.' Gaetz added that Biden with his 'autopen presidency' was too busy destroying the country to care. 'This is yet another opportunity for Trump to notch a generational win where Ob- ama and Joe Biden failed.' Advertisement Longtime hedge fund trader Marc Cohodes is even more adamant about legalizing marijuana. He is both an investor in Pot Inc. and a medical user after shoulder surgery. 'If he totally legalizes, Trump will totally destroy the Democratic Party,' Cohodes tells me. 'Polls show that most Americans want this legalized. Trump will turn the GOP into the people's party.' Trump's options include totally 'declassifying' pot, making it 100% legal in the eyes of federal law. He could also 'reschedule' pot as a 'Schedule III' controlled substance, along the lines of anabolic steroids and other drugs that the feds have modestly blessed for specific medical-related uses. If he does nothing, pot would r emain a Schedule I drug, where the federal government views it as a highly controlled substance. Up to $60 billion annually The various distinctions matter for the pot industry, which is estimated to rake in between $40 billion and $60 billion a year. While marijuana is fully legal or decriminalized in most states, without the federal government taking it off the Schedule I list it can't be 'banked.' Wall Street shies away from underwriting the stock of any company that in Pot Inc. parlance 'touches the plant.' If Wall Street can begin underwriting pot stocks, financing US-based growers, for example, Pot Inc. could grow exponentially. Still, legalization skeptics on Trump's team will have a say. New Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole is a veteran at an agency with a long anti-pot bias. Advertisement Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Department of Health and H uman Services, has spoken about decriminalizing weed but also how there are negative health effects from consuming the 'high-potency' stuff. Many critics say today's bud has hallucinogenic effects, and could be a gateway to more dangerous stuff like opioids. That's why Gaetz thinks Trump won't go for full legalization and allow it only for medical use. Ditto for longtime Trump political guru Roger Stone. 'I don't think he ever completely de-schedules it, which is what I would do,' Stone tells me. Advertisement Cohodes says not going all the way would be a mistake. First, banking for Pot Inc. would remain difficult if it is only re- scheduled. Plus, making it totally legal could help decimate a major source of income for the various drug cartels. It would be age-restricted by the government. 'By eliminating prohibition, illegal cartels get removed because legal businesses not currently banked become bankable,' Cohodes said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's clear that he intends to keep sending troops into American cities. But Americans can't let that become the new normal. Advertisement There ought to be bipartisan pushback. After all, Republicans used to be the first to object to federal interference in local affairs. Indeed, it should not have to be said how dangerous this is: Federalized police takeovers of cities are hallmarks of autocracies. When leaders cannot govern by democratic means, they turn to force to bend citizens to their will. And, as is often the case in backsliding democracies, they falsely claim to be acting for people's own good. Advertisement 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore,' Trump said at His words are not backed up by data. Among other things, he cited 2023 crime statistics from the city, which did experience a post-pandemic crime surge. But since then, violent crime has plummeted in the city. Even if the district really were the dystopian hellscape Trump describes, though, it is wrong to think the military could fix it. Crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem, not something that can be solved with Humvees. Trump, though, was not deterred by facts. 'I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,' Trump said. Trump's announced plan is, at least in part, of debatable legality. Because of D.C.'s unique status as the nation's capital, the president and Congress do have powers there that they lack elsewhere. Still, the law Trump cited does not allow the president to commandeer local law enforcement in Washington, as he seemed to imply. The Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s local government, gives the president no local law enforcement powers at all, meaning he cannot direct local police to conduct patrols, detain people, or arrest them. What the law does allow is for the president to direct the local police, under Section 740, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes .' The law also caps the amount of time such emergency declaration can last to 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days if Congress is properly notified of the action. Advertisement 'In other words,' borrow the [Washington police] for his own priorities; but he can't control how they discharge their other duties.' This is something Trump could have done, for example, on Jan. 6, 2021 during the violent siege of the US Capitol building to allow seamless coordination of local and federal law enforcement to assist Capitol Police in stemming the violence. But in that emergency, he chose not to. Something else the president has done in D.C. this week that he didn't do during the Jan. 6 attack is to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. Unlike in states, where governors direct the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president, who reportedly deployed The federal government also has some powers to deploy agents from other agencies, such as the US Park Police, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, but the law limits some of those agency's powers based on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example, ICE agents can only conduct civil immigration enforcement, they cannot conduct an arrest for suspected carjacking or any other local criminal action, and Park Police only have jurisdiction on federal land. Whether all law enforcement officials are staying within legal and constitutional lines is yet to be determined. In California, where a trial is underway to determine if the administration violated the law with its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, it will take months if not years for the matter to make its way through the courts. The same will be true with the latest gambit in D.C. Advertisement But in the meantime, the president and other administration officials have the The president is taking advantage of the fact that he can implement legally and constitutionally dubious actions before courts have time to vet and stop them. But leaders, including Republicans who have long called for limited government, should decry this and do what they can to stop this autocratic move. Whether it is part of a cynical play to the the GOP's base ahead of midterm elections, or part of a deeper plan, as outlined by the White House earlier this year to ' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
