Leopards Ate My Face

i don’t think he has to specifically say ‘i wanted leopards to eat peoples faces.’

But he does. That's the whole premise: that the 'eating faces' is a thing you explicitly supported. Hence the 'I didn't think they would eat MY face' 'punchline'.

The whole point of LAMF is to point out the foolishness of assuming that a particular action will be taken selectively, that was never actually 'promised' to be done selectively (notice that it's not the "Leopards Eating [group's] Faces", just "Faces"). If the thing they supported is not the same thing that's biting them in the ass, then there's no connection. Some examples:

• Supporting candidate promise to "gut/cut government programs to save money", then complaining when a government program you rely on is affected? Yes, this is LAMF.
• Supporting candidate promise to "gut/cut a specific government program X to save money", then complaining when a different government program you rely on is affected? No, this is not LAMF.

I think some of the confusion also is that LAMF is about support/advocacy of the policy/campaign promise/etc., not about the individual espousing it—it's the 'eating faces' itself that is the focus. This is why it doesn't fit LAMF when the 'supported thing' and the 'negative consequence' are unrelated, despite coming from the same administration.

If a situation like the OP counts as LAMF, then literally ANY negative impact coming from ANY administration a person voted for, would count as LAMF, and that just renders the whole concept meaningless. Do you think anyone who complained about Obama's drone strikes during his administration, who voted for him, should be considered 'fair game' for LAMF? I sure don't.