People Have A Lot To Say About This MAGA Supporter Who Regrets Her Vote Now That The Trump Admin Wants To Ban Sugary Food From SNAP
To no one's surprise, we've got yet another regretful Trump voter! Today, it's someone I'll call S who recently made a Facebook post about how she made the wrong choice.
Reddit user u/Effective_Space2277 shared a screenshot of the post in the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit, where you can often find Trump voters regretting their votes and people in the comments making the shocked Pikachu face.
In her Facebook post, S wrote, "I'll admit it — I voted last election after years of saying my vote wouldn't matter. Between the choices we were given, I chose Trump. And now... I regret it."
"My husband and I worked our whole lives, paid into the system like we were supposed to. Now, we're both disabled, can't work, and we're struggling just to survive. Our home is paid off (thankfully), but we're behind on land taxes because they don't take payments. Our power bill is through the roof. We get SNAP, but now I'm reading the Trump administration wants to ban processed foods and sugar on SNAP. If that happens, we won't even be able to afford food for the month."
"Let's be real — healthy, non-processed food costs more than what we get in benefits for the entire month. And on top of that, they're trying to force everyone to pay back student loans, while foreigners come here and get free education. Other countries help their citizens. We get punished for getting sick, for needing help, for trying to survive."
"So did I make the wrong choice voting for Trump? 100% yes. But looking at the other option... was there ever really a right one?" S concluded, along with a number of hashtags: #DisabledAndForgotten, #PoorAndPunished, #WeDeserveBetter, #RegretMyVote, and #StrugglingToSurvive.
As you might imagine, people were not very sympathetic in the comments. Most couldn't get over the line about there being no good choices in the election:
Related: A Picture Of Donald Trump's Face Being Two Completely Different Colors Is Going Viral For Obvious Reasons
"'Was there ever really a right choice?' Just the candidate who wasn't going to burn your economy to the ground and snatch away every benefit you rely on. It's so hard to tell."
—u/Muzzlax
"Every time we see one of these posts, there's almost always the same conclusion made by these idiots: 'Was the other option any better? No.' So they admit voting for Trump hasn't worked out, but they still cannot envision any scenario where they would have voted for Kamala. That tells me that Trump could still win them over. They won't afford the Democrats the same courtesy. Fuck these people."
—u/WigginIII
"What was so god-awful about Kamala Harris that this person thought voting to starve to death was the better option? I don't think I've ever heard any of these numbskulls explain why they thought Kamala was so bad. I mean, I know the obvious answer is that she is a Black woman, but what is the answer they tell themselves?"
—u/Lonely_Impression142
Related: People Who Voted For Trump Are Getting Very Honest About Donald Trump's Latest Truth Social Post
Others focused on S blaming "foreigners" and their "free education":
"Still hating foreigners instead of the greedy billionaires. She can eat dirt."
—u/AllDressedKetchup
"What foreigners are getting university tuition for free? If anything, international students pay double or triple the tuition fees. They are also not eligible for federal loans at all. Why do Trumpers always have to have someone to blame?"
—u/Awkward-Sprinkles398
"Bigots' Greatest Hits: Foreigners get free stuff fantasies. My welfare is the only deserved welfare. Voting for the not-fascist was unthinkable, but I won't say why."
—u/cg12983
And some people were just generally unimpressed:
"Voting Republican when you have disabilities and are on food stamps is absolutely fucking wild even if it was a normal Republican and not Trump."
—u/Nerdy-Babygirl
"I hear bootstraps are on sale at Target."
—u/Sudden_Situation7604
"'Other countries take care of their citizens.' WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET YOU FUCKING IMBECILES TO PUT THIS INTO PRACTICE FOR DECADES!!!!"
—u/The_Blackthorn77
And finally, "Well, the leopard had a few bites at this one."
—u/Significant_Gur_1031
What do you think about all this? LMK in the comments below!
Note: Some responses have been edited for length and/or clarity.
Also in In the News: "We Went From 'Lower The Price Of Eggs' To 'Lower Your Standard Of Living'": 39 Of The Best, Most Brutal, And Very Relatable Political Tweets Of The Month
Also in In the News: A Republican's Response To A "Tax The Rich" Chant At His Town Hall Is Going Viral
Also in In the News: "We Don't Import Food": 31 Americans Who Are Just So, So Confused About Tariffs And US Trade
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is losing support among independent voters. Who are they?
We'll have to wait and see exactly what the American bombing raid on Iranian nuclear sites accomplished and how far it set back the country's nuclear ambitions. The White House and Pentagon have launched a concerted effort to convince Americans the mission was successful and needed. At a Pentagon news conference, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine went into great detail to explain the years of planning that underpinned readiness for the attack and how it was executed. Details like those Caine shared could help sway public opinion and bring Americans behind strikes. But the early assessment of how the public views the strikes is probably not what the administration was hoping for. A majority, 56%, disapproved of the strikes in a CNN poll released this week, before conflicting assessments of the mission's success. The results in CNN's poll fall along predictable ideological lines. Democrats will pretty much always disapprove of what the Trump administration does, and Republicans will pretty much always approve. Here's how CNN's polling team put it in their report: Majorities of independents (60%) and Democrats (88%) disapprove of the decision to take military action in Iran. Republicans largely approve (82%). But just 44% of Republicans strongly approve of the airstrikes, far smaller than the group of Democrats who strongly disapprove (60%), perhaps reflecting that some in Trump's coalition are broadly distrustful of military action abroad. It's an obvious rule of US politics that independent voters are generally the ones who might, as their opinions shift sway, tilt power in the country. And on a range of issues, they have been turning against Trump. CNN's Aaron Blake looked last week at numerous polls on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. 'Independents opposed the bill by around a 3-to-1 margin … The KFF and Fox News polls – the ones with the fewest undecideds – showed 7 in 10 independents opposed it,' Blake wrote. On what may be Trump's signature issue, deportations and immigration policy, CNN's polling editor Ariel Edwards-Levy wrote about a CNN poll in April, 'more than half of independents now say they have no real confidence in him to deal with the topic, with 56% now saying he has gone too far on deportations.' On tariffs, the economy and government cuts, Trump has failed, at least so far, to convince Americans who don't identify with either party, that his agenda is the right thing to do. I went to CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, who has been tracking this trend for some time. 'It's pretty clear that independents and independent voters have turned against Trump,' he told me. Back in April, Enten's analysis said that Trump had the worst approval rating on record with independents at that point in a presidency. 'His issue is he has completely lost the center of the electorate,' Enten said, offering two very obvious and simple reasons why. Independents don't like what Trump is doing on the economy. They don't seem to like the bulk of his agenda otherwise (see the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'). This will present major problems for Trump and the GOP going forward. 'Now, it's possible that Trump and the GOP can do well going forward without independents breaking overwhelmingly for them,' Enten said, pointing out that independents broke for Trump in 2024. 'The problem is you can't be losing independents 20+ points and survive in American politics,' he added. At the same time, independents are hard to track for a variety of reasons. Unlike Republicans and Democrats, they don't act as a unified voting bloc, as Edwards-Levy and CNN's Jennifer Agiesta wrote a few years ago. 'Plenty of independents are in fact partisan and they're certainly not de facto moderates,' Edwards-Levy told me. What do independents have in common? 'They're less strongly tethered to particular partisan loyalties and less likely to be closely engaged with politics, all of which makes their views potentially more malleable than those of stronger partisans,' Edwards-Levy said. In a recent Washington Post poll about the Trump's agenda bill, for instance, only 18% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans said they hadn't heard anything about the controversial proposal to extend Trump's first-term tax cuts, create new tax cuts and slash spending, including on Medicaid. It was a much larger portion of independents, 34%, who hadn't heard anything at all about the president's top legislative priority.
29 minutes ago
Congo and Rwanda to sign US-mediated peace deal to end conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal -- The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decadeslong deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, to be signed in Washington Friday, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the conflict-battered, mineral-rich region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the U.N. has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by President Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union as well as Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said it is defending its territorial interests and not supporting the M23. However, the M23 rebels have suggested the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group has not been directly involved in the planned peace deal although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance that includes the M23, told the Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal does not concern the rebels. Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under a separate minerals deal being negotiated. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decadeslong conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe the peace deal will help resolve the violence but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' —-
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
As two African nations sign a peace deal, Trump wants credit. But some fear peace may still elude them
A peace agreement brokered by the White House to stem the bloodshed in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies vast swaths of land, will be signed in Washington D.C. on Friday by officials of the two African nations. But many remain unconvinced that the accord – portrayed as a 'wonderful treaty' by United States President Donald Trump – can end the complex and long-running conflict, while the militia itself has yet to commit to laying down its weapons. Trump was upbeat about the prospects for peace when teams from Rwanda and the DRC initialed a draft agreement on June 18, while at the same time suggesting that he would not get credit for his role in ending this or other conflicts. On June 20, he wrote on Truth Social: 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this.' He added: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump touts himself as a 'peacemaker' and has expanded his interest in global conflicts to the brutal war in the mineral-rich eastern DRC. His peace deal could also pave the way for America's economic interests in the region, as it eyes access to the DRC's critical minerals. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will preside over the signing of the peace agreement by DRC Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner and her Rwandan counterpart Olivier Nduhungirehe on Friday. More than 7,000 people have been killed, and some one million others displaced since January, when the M23 militia waged a fresh offensive against the Congolese army, seizing control of the two largest cities in the country's east. There has been increasing reports of summary executions – even of children – in occupied areas, where aid groups say they are also witnessing an epidemic of rape and sexual violence. The crisis in the eastern DRC, which shares a border with Rwanda and harbors large deposits of minerals critical to the production of electronics, is a fusion of complex issues. Daniel Kubelwa, a Congolese activist and researcher told CNN that the DRC's feud with Rwanda is 'deeply rooted in colonial-era border disputes, unresolved regional tensions, and the consequences of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.' In that genocide, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu militias. Rwanda criticizes the DRC, which faces problems with militia violence, for integrating a proscribed Hutu militia group into its army to fight against the mainly Tutsi M23. M23, which first emerged in 2012, is one of the most prominent militias battling for control of the DRC's mineral wealth. The rebel group also claims to defend the interests of the Tutsis and other Congolese minorities of Rwandan origin. UN experts and much of the international community believe that Rwanda backs M23 and supports the rebels with troops, leaving the nation on the cusp of war with the DRC over this alleged territorial violation. The Rwandan government has not acknowledged this claim but insists it protects itself against the Hutu militia operating in the DRC, which it describes as an 'existential security threat to Rwanda.' M23 occupies strategic mining towns in the DRC's eastern provinces of North and South Kivu. In a report in December, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC said they found evidence that minerals 'were fraudulently exported to Rwanda' from the DRC 'and mixed with Rwandan production.' Rwandan President Paul Kagame drew outrage last year when he admitted in a public address that Rwanda was a transit point for minerals smuggled from the DRC but insisted his country was not stealing from its neighbor. Washington's peace accord contains provisions on 'respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities,' including 'disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of non-state armed groups,' according to a joint statement issued by the US, Rwanda and the DRC on June 18. Other points include 'facilitation of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as humanitarian access' and the establishment of a 'regional economic integration framework' that could attract significant US investments into Rwanda and the DRC. However, the rebel coalition Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), of which M23 is a key member, told CNN it did not participate in the US-brokered peace process between the Rwandan and Congolese governments, but was instead committed to a separate negotiation process mediated by Qatar in its capital Doha. Asked whether AFC would surrender its arms, Victor Tesongo, a spokesperson for the coalition, said it was 'not there yet' and that it was waiting on developments in Doha. He did not confirm whether airports in the eastern DRC that had been shut by the rebels would reopen for aid supply. Previous truce agreements have failed to bring lasting peace between M23 and the Congolese armed forces. In April, the rebels jointly declared a truce after meeting with representatives of the DRC during negotiations led by Qatar. Fighting flared up days after. Qatar has been facilitating talks after Angolan President João Lourenço quit his mediation role following months of inability to broker peace. Activist Kubelwa told CNN that while the US and Qatar-led peace efforts were commendable, 'any deal that doesn't address the root causes (of the conflict) will only serve as a temporary truce.' One of those root causes, he said, was the 'unfair distribution' of the DRC's mineral wealth, which he claimed, 'benefits a small elite and foreign powers, while ordinary Congolese, especially in the east, suffer displacement and misery.' The DRC is roughly the size of western Europe and is home to more than 100 million people. The Central African nation is also endowed with the world's largest reserves of cobalt – used to produce batteries that power cell phones and electric vehicles – and coltan, which is refined into tantalum and has a variety of applications in phones and other devices. However, according to the World Bank, 'most people in DRC have not benefited from this wealth,' and the country ranks among the five poorest nations in the world. Kubelwa said another trigger for the conflict in the DRC was the country's 'weak institutions' and 'suppression of dissent.' Ahead of signing the US-brokered peace deal, Nduhungirehe, the Rwandan foreign minister, told CNN that his nation was 'committed to supporting the ongoing negotiations,' but warned that ending the conflict 'will depend on the political will and good faith in Kinshasa,' referring to the DRC's government. The DRC foreign minister's office said it would comment on the deal after the document is signed. Congolese human rights activist and Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege has described the deal as 'vague' and tilted in Rwanda's favor. After details of the draft agreement were announced last week, he posted a statement on X criticizing it for failing to recognize 'Rwanda's aggression against the DRC,' which he wrote, 'suggests it (the peace accord) benefits the unsanctioned aggressor, who will thus see its past and present crimes whitewashed as 'economic cooperation.'' He added: 'In its current state, the emerging agreement would amount to granting a reward for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace.' Congolese political and economic analyst Dady Saleh told CNN he 'remains skeptical' about the ability of the US peace treaty to ensure a path to peace. For Kubelwa, 'a true and lasting solution must go beyond ceasefires and formal agreements. It must include genuine accountability, regional truth-telling, redistribution of national wealth, reform of governance, and a broad national dialogue that includes all Congolese voices not just elites or foreign allies.' 'Without this, peace remains a fragile illusion,' he said.
