By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Comedian and podcaster Andrew Schulz, known for his large following of young men, has expressed disappointment with former President Donald Trump despite previously supporting him. Schulz, who predicted a Trump landslide victory, now criticizes Trump for actions that contradict his campaign promises, particularly regarding war funding and budget increases. Recent administration controversies have led Schulz to question Trump’s ability to enact meaningful change. He also acknowledged his initial support for Trump stemmed from a desire for change from the status quo, but now feels Trump has failed to deliver on many promises, as was previously warned by Pete Buttigieg.
Read the original article here
Podcast Bro Turns on Trump: ‘I Voted For None of This’
Okay, so the headline is out there: “Podcast Bro Turns on Trump: ‘I Voted For None of This.’” And the immediate reaction, it seems, from a significant chunk of the population is a resounding, “Yes, you did.” That’s the core sentiment here, the almost universal eye-roll that accompanies these pronouncements of regret. The gist of the conversation revolves around the sheer audacity of anyone, particularly figures in the public eye like these “podcast bros,” acting surprised by the direction Trump is taking the country.
The crux of the matter is that Trump, during his campaign and throughout his first term, was incredibly explicit about his intentions. He made no secret of his agenda. From the rallies where “Mass Deportations Now” signs were prominently displayed to the promises of tariffs and tax cuts, the signals were clear. So, when someone, especially a public figure, now cries foul and says, “I didn’t vote for *this*,” the common response is, well, you absolutely did. You voted for the guy who *told* you what he was going to do, and now you’re surprised he’s doing it?
The tone around this is one of exasperation. The comments are filled with a sense of “we told you so.” There’s a frustration that people, especially those with platforms, could be so blind to the obvious. This isn’t about being prescient; it’s about paying attention. It’s about critical thinking. To many, the fact that some of these individuals are only now realizing the implications of their votes is a sign of either naiveté, ignorance, or a calculated attempt to distance themselves from a sinking ship.
There’s also a significant thread of cynicism running through this discussion. Some see these belated expressions of regret as nothing more than a damage control exercise. These “podcast bros,” and others like them, are viewed as opportunists who were either complicit in supporting Trump or, at the very least, turned a blind eye for their own gain. Now, as the political landscape shifts and Trump’s popularity wanes, they’re scrambling to protect their own reputations and careers. They’re jumping ship.
The point is made: If you voted for Trump, you voted for this. He was very clear about his plans. Ignoring the warning signs or taking his statements at face value doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility. It highlights a failure to critically assess the candidate, his policies, and his potential impact on the country. Now the chorus seems to say that it is time for them to eat the consequences of their actions.
The reaction isn’t universal, though. Some argue against simply dismissing these defectors, understanding that the political landscape has changed enough that those involved are rethinking. They acknowledge that it can be difficult to admit being wrong, to change one’s mind. Others point out the importance of reaching out to those who are shifting their positions, even if their past support was misguided. The prevailing sentiment, however, is that there’s a limit to sympathy.
There’s also a strong undercurrent of anger. This isn’t just about being correct or pointing out hypocrisy. It’s about the perceived damage that Trump has inflicted on the country and the world. People feel betrayed, and that betrayal extends to those who enabled him, either actively or passively. The idea of sharing a table with these “goons” is unthinkable.
The conversation also touches on the broader issue of political discourse. The criticism levied is that Democrats and those on the left need to work on better communication, rather than making the other side feel so alienated that they won’t even consider another opinion. The sentiment is that in order to win people over, a different approach is required.
The takeaway is clear: the narrative of the “Podcast Bro” turning on Trump encapsulates a larger discussion. It’s about accountability, political awareness, and the consequences of choosing to ignore what’s right in front of you. It’s about the dangers of blindly following a leader who makes their intentions clear, and the resulting frustration of those who tried to warn us. It’s a reminder that voting has consequences, and that saying “I didn’t vote for this” simply isn’t a valid excuse.