While the establishment media has been working over-time "grading" President Trump in his first 100 days, what is missing in the debate is how Trump supporters have measured up to their assertions before the election and how they have reacted since the November presidential election.
For the purpose of this article we are dividing "supporters" up into three categories: 1) Die Hard Trump Supporters: Those that supported Donald Trump from the day he announced candidacy; 2) Anti-Hillary: Those that would have supported anyone to prevent a Clinton presidency: 3) On-The-Fence: Those that only started supporting Trump after he knocked off their favored candidate or candidates and became the GOP nominee, so "I'll give him a chance."
Die Hards - We have noted after extensive research through forums and comment sections across the Internet, via Independent News websites, MSM websites, forums and blogs, that many die hard Trump supporters will only acknowledge actions taken in the first 100 days of Trump's presidency that they agree with, totally ignoring pledges included in the Contract with the American Voter that have been reneged upon, such as naming China a currency manipulator.
Are the die hards any better than the so-called #NeverTrumpers who criticize any and all policies, Executive Orders, Cabinet picks, even if they had previously endorsed the very same actions and people?
Criticizing actions that one does not support while acknowledging those that one does support, is not a betrayal to that support, but shows objectivity.
Anti-Hillary supporters - Those that supported Trump for no other reason than to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president have their own set of issues, where any decision made by Trump that Clinton would not have made, such as immigration policy, or dumping two regulations for each new one, and other actions taken via Executive Order, is hailed as genius yet any decision made that Clinton may have supported is hailed as a "betrayal."
What those "supporters" tend to forget is that Donald Trump throughout his life had supported both Democrats and Republicans, and has never been a traditional conservative, something Independent Media highlighted often during the election cycle, yet because he became the GOP nominee, they automatically assumed that having an (R- Republican) after his name on the ticket, somehow magically changed him from the true Independent he is, into some type of ultra-conservative.
He is not, nor will he ever be a traditional conservative, and over the next four years President Trump is going to make decisions we vehemently disagree with, yet the most of us supported him was because he was not a career politician and more importantly, he would make decisions dependent on "issues" rather than "party."
On the Fence Crowd - This is the most interesting category of supporters which I debated separating into two different categories, but since much of the same mindset is being shown by both the supporters that only jumped on the Trump train after their favored GOP candidate or candidates had been eliminated from the race, and those that went into the election with saying "I'll give him a chance," I decided to merge the two.
In this category we have good and bad. Let me start with the good. Observation across the Internet shows that many of those that said before the election "I'll give him a chance," are doing exactly that. I have noted them calling President Trump out on decisions they disagree with, speaking out about promises not kept, but making a point to acknowledge each and every promise kept or that President Trump has attempted to keep, such as the travel pause which has been blocked by liberal judges and will most likely have to be brought to the Supreme Court.
To paraphrase many of those people because each has their own way of phrasing it, but their bottom line is they said they would give Trump a chance, they meant it and will speak out against decisions they think are bad, but will back him and make their final determination as to whether they feel they did the right thing in supporting him or not, by the end of his term when the balance sheets can be fully filled out.
Then we have the "I'll give him a chance" crowd that might have thought they meant it when they said it, but they haven't walked the walk. Those that claim they don't trust the establishment media, yet every time a report comes out of the liberal talking heads they jump on it screaming "we were betrayed!" even when subsequent reports showed it was misleading or outright "fake news."
It is understandable, up to a point, after so many years of being betrayed by politicians, that it is hard to let go of the mistrust and the mindset of always looking for the bad, yet never acknowledging the good, which leaves an after-taste of "bad, bad, bad."
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT FOR THE "I'LL GIVE HIM A CHANCE" SUPPORTERS
Here are some questions for everyone that supported Donald Trump in the general election to ask ourselves, as a thought experiment.
In the first 100 days how many times have you commented in forums, news website comment sections, chats, social media or even in conversations at home, spoken about policy decisions, Executive Orders, cabinet picks, that you agree with?
In the first 100 days how many times have you spoken in those same forums or at home of policy decisions, Executive Orders, cabinet picks, that you disagree with?
Now compare the two.
If, like many, you can list both, kudos on your objectivity. If you cannot, and the disagree answer far outweighs the agree answer, then maybe only looking for the negative and only talking about the negative, makes it so that is all you can see, commonly known as negative filtering.
If President Trump "supporters" do not like the answers to the thought experiment above, even if they just answered the questions in their own minds, then perhaps it is not President Trump that needs to be graded on his first hundred days, maybe those that supported Trump during the general election should be grading themselves.