By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro criticized President Trump for allegedly betraying the voters who supported him. Shapiro accused Trump of making promises to blue-collar communities while campaigning but then failing to address their needs once in office. Citing the recent “One Big, Beautiful Bill” as an example, Shapiro pointed out how the bill cut Medicaid benefits for thousands of Pennsylvanians, including those who voted for Trump. Shapiro contrasted his own actions, like hiring more police and reducing crime, with Trump’s, which included pardoning individuals involved in the January 6th assault on the Capitol.
Read the original article here
Trump has ‘turned his back on the communities that voted for him,’ Pennsylvania governor says. Alright, so the whole thing boils down to this idea that a certain segment of the population feels betrayed, or maybe even just surprised, by Donald Trump. The core sentiment seems to be that he’s abandoned the very people who put him in office. It’s an accusation that carries a lot of weight, especially in the world of politics, where loyalty and fulfilling promises are often considered key. But, from what I gather, this isn’t exactly a sudden revelation.
The core of the issue stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump’s motivations. The consensus here seems to be that he was never really “for” these communities in the first place. His primary goal, according to the commentary, was simply to get elected. It’s a pretty cynical view, suggesting that the promises he made, the rhetoric he used, were just tools to achieve a singular objective: winning. So, the ‘turning his back’ part is almost seen as a given, something that was inevitable from the beginning.
It’s like the commentators are saying, “We told you so.” They seem to believe that Trump’s actions are perfectly in line with his character and past behavior. His history, his reported business practices, and even his public statements paint a picture of someone primarily driven by self-interest. So, when the promises go unfulfilled, the jobs don’t materialize, and the economic benefits don’t arrive, it’s not a betrayal, but a predictable outcome. It’s like someone ordering a meal at a restaurant, knowing full well that it will not be good.
Then there’s the accusation that Trump is a con artist, that he deliberately misled his supporters. This is a harsh assessment, but it underscores the depth of the disappointment and disillusionment felt by some. If someone feels they were deliberately manipulated, the anger is understandable. They might feel that their trust was exploited, their values were cynically used for political gain.
The connection to Fox News is important here. It’s clear that Fox News is painted as a significant enabler of Trump. Some commenters believe it has cultivated a cult-like following. This perspective suggests that Fox News played a critical role in shaping the narrative and influencing the voters, and therefore bears a significant portion of the blame if the promised results did not come to pass.
The phrase “shocked Pikachu face” comes up, which is a great way of framing the reaction of those who are supposedly surprised by Trump’s behavior. It’s a bit dismissive, suggesting that anyone with even a basic understanding of Trump’s character and actions shouldn’t be surprised. This sentiment of “you should have known” is a recurring theme, emphasizing the idea that the outcome was readily foreseeable.
The idea that “they never meant shit to him” is pretty scathing. It really highlights the perception that these voters were nothing more than a means to an end. The emphasis shifts from the promises Trump made to his voters to his own personal gain. His lack of loyalty, his supposed self-obsession – these are the things that some people see as fundamental to his nature.
The comments are also pretty clear on this point: this is not just a political issue; it’s a character issue. It goes beyond policy or ideology. It’s about whether Trump has any capacity for loyalty, empathy, or genuine concern for the people who supported him. The overall argument suggests that, based on his history and actions, the answer is a resounding “no”.
The lack of surprise in these comments points to a key idea: that the communities who voted for Trump are just realizing what the rest of the world saw all along. This is, perhaps, the most telling aspect of the sentiment expressed. It’s not just about disappointment; it’s also about vindication. For those who always believed that Trump was not who he claimed to be, the recent developments serve as confirmation.
The discussion makes a sharp distinction between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions. The commentary emphasizes the consistent pattern of Trump’s behavior over the years, pointing to a trail of broken promises, unfulfilled commitments, and questionable financial dealings. This is the foundation for the claim that he has always been, and will always be, primarily focused on his own self-interest.
Ultimately, the sentiment expressed boils down to a mix of anger, disappointment, and a sense of “told you so”. It is clear that this is not a surprise to those who saw his actions and rhetoric for what they were, and they feel vindicated. And that, is how the claim “Trump has ‘turned his back on the communities that voted for him,’ Pennsylvania governor says” is both understood and considered.