It's now become a seemingly weekly exercise in the New York Times (motto: "Yeah, we hired a climate change denialist and fuck you for criticizing us for it"): an article checking in on some group of people or community that supported Donald Trump in the presidential election of 2016. This time around in our Jane-Goodall-among-the-apes tour of shitty parts of America, we're in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in a district that Trump won by only two-tenths of a point to see what those goddamned yokels and exurbanites think about the job President Trump is doing.
This exercise is akin to asking a chronic masturbator why he keeps jacking off. "Look at you," you can say to this compulsive onanist, "your dick is scabby and chafed, you can barely even get hard anymore, let alone ejaculate, and you're so sick of porn that it takes near-death strangle sex videos to interest you at all. You're exhausted, your friends have abandoned you, your place stinks of cum, and, c'mon, man, take a shower. Why do you keep doing it?" Of course, the wanker is gonna tell you, "Because it feels so good" even though all evidence points to the exact opposite.
So we're off to Eastern Pennsylvania to see what some white people think of Trump in a swing district. And guess what? "Many still trust him, but wonder why his deal-making instincts do not seem to be translating. They admire his zeal, but are occasionally baffled by his tweets. They insist he will be fine, but suggest gently that maybe Vice President Mike Pence should assume a more expansive role." They have their doubts, but they stand by their decision. And they're sure that Trump himself isn't solely to blame for his lack of "winning." Said one fucking idiot, "“It’s really disheartening what they’re putting him through." Yes, it's a shame that "they" demand a president act like a goddamned president and not a king.
The article by Matt Flegenheimer goes out of its way to be fairer than the usual dumbass-whites-love-Trump pieces. He includes people who oppose Trump, and he does show Trump voters who seem like they are edging towards enlightenment, although they all stop just short of regret. But even this is disingenuous because, according to polls, those dumbass whites who voted for Trump fuckin' love the guy like it was still the heady summer of 2016 when the chant of "Lock her up" was the howler monkey yawp of the damned.
Yeah, white people give him a 50% approval rating, with white men coming in at 56% approving (and white women at a disheartening 46%). Shit, 78% of white people who consider themselves the mythical "moderate Republicans" approve of Trump's job performance.
And of course it's whites. Generally middle-income, lower-educated whites, but white people. And that's because of the, yeah, you know it, racism. Say it all together because it's statistically demonstrable: Lots of white people voted for Trump because of his promises to harm people of other races. It wasn't economic anxiety. It wasn't anti-establishment. It was racism.
So every time you do an article about Trump voters and how their feeling about the president, you're pretty much validating that racism. It's more or less "Hey, let's check out what a bunch of people who are stupider than shit and hate Muslims and Hispanics and blacks think of the idiot asshole they elected and pretend that their gutter-level ignorance is hard-scrabble wisdom." Move to another area of the country and repeat.
I can't figure out why it's so fucking important for the Times to figure out what this demographic of the dumb believe about Trump. The filthy masses won't ever love the big city elites. And if you're hoping to get the scoop on some shift in attitudes, well, it ain't gonna happen in the first 100 days. Or ever for most of his voters.
This is a kind of religion. It doesn't have a rational basis. It is all faith built upon lies. The faithful will not tell you their god is false, even if you show them his many heresies.
