First, Clinton's approval rating was lower than 40% much later than 4+ months after inauguration.. At this point in time, Clinton's approval ratings were around 60%.
Take it up with Yahoo and RealClearPolitics. They have Trump about a point and a half higher than Clinton was. https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-tr...173807738.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/pr...l-clinton.aspx
I looked at the Gallup poll and in all honestly I couldn't tell at what point in time Clinton's approval rating dropped from 60% to 39%. I estimated it to be later than 4 1/2 months into his Presidency. Even if your statement is correct, a sub-40 approval rating is terrible during the "honeymoon". We'll see what happens over time. Clinton was back up into the mid to high 50s well before the end of his first year in office. So let's revisit this issue in the October time frame when Clinton's approval ratings recovered
The allies that he pissed off while were Germany, France and Israel. He pretty much pissed off all the NATO countries by not supporting Article 5 at that time and by publicly demeaning many of the NATO members to their faces.
Easy to say but what did he do and where is their reaction other than Germany saying that they would try to do better with the money that they owe.
You've got to be kidding. Merkel dislikes Trump, as does Macron. Do I really have to post links to support that statement? Trump is not doing well in approval polls in the U.S. but compared to sentiments in other countries, he is doing fantastically well.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...s-surveys-show
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politi...ton/index.html
And Israel is upset with Trump for sharing what was classified information with Russia:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nce/101762992/
And secondly, Trump made a campaign promise to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, had the chance to do so when he visited Israel, but did not do it. Israel again pissed off.
Yes he sold arms to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. Will it add jobs? Probably not. It will make current jobs more secure.
Jobs more secure, more added jobs, and fewer US sailors and airmen needed overseas to guard Saudi Arabia. Sounds like a win-win-win.
I'd like proof that more jobs were added to support the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. And any statements that the U.S. will have less of a military presence in that area of the world due to the arms deal.
Yes, he got a Supreme Court justice installed, only after changing the voting rules for doing so.
Only after McConnell changed the rules BACK to what they used to be a generation ago. Was that a surprise? I call it BAU. Rolling back EPA and environmental regulations is NOT a positive in many people's eyes.
Rolling back onerous regulations may not be good in YOUR eyes but don't speak for the rest of us.
I am hardly speaking for "the rest of us". You make it sound like I'm the only person who does not believe that rolling back EPA and environmental regulations could end up as a negative. So wrong. Trump is trying to revive the coal industry, an industry that will continue on the down slide independent of regulations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2eb2ef945da6
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...e-environment/
http://time.com/4713731/donald-trump...ent-obama-epa/
Trump's first travel ban was blatantly unconstitutional and he would be foolish to try to get that one approved by SCOTUS. The second one I don't think was that discriminatory and could be approved by SCOTUS. But the fact is -- so far FAILURE.
Actually neither statement is true. The critics say that it was unconstitutinal and discriminatory but the Supreme Court has not ruled on either claim. I would say that the ban is discriminatory because ALL bans are discriminatory to someone...duh! In this case it is unvettable, terrorist wannabees. As for unconstitional, lets let the Supreme Court decide before you make the claim. OK?
Not OK. My statements on the first travel ban are 100% true so far. Lower courts already support my contention that the first travel ban was unconstitutional:
January 28 -- Judge in New York temporarily blocks part of orderA federal judge in New York blocked part of the order. US Judge Ann M. Donnelly held that the petitioners had a "strong likelihood of success" in establishing that their removal "violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
Unless Trump decides to challenge the lower court's ruling on travel ban 1, I am 100% correct totally. And if you look back at what I previously said, I don't believe the second travel ban was unconstitutional but lower courts have ruled it unconstitutional.
March 29 -- Ruling extended A federal judge in Hawaii grants the state's request for a longer term halt of the revised travel ban executive order. US District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocked the core provisions of the revised executive order two weeks ago, concluding that the order likely violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.
Trump asked for several line items in the budget to get us to September. The REPUBLICAN controlled House did not give them to him. He wanted money for the wall. He wanted a decrease in health spending. This was TRUMP'S failures, not Congress. Here is a summary of his misses.
He wanted reduced money for the EPA, he got that. He wanted more for defense, he got that. The budget is a process and is not over yet. Don't be a premature type like some people around here.
Please take the time to actually read my comments before criticizing them. I was talking ONLY about the budget to get us through September of 2017, and it was signed by President Trump on May 5th. 99% of the EPA funding is still in the budget. He got 1/2 of what he requested for border security (and none for the wall) and military funding. Now if you're talking about the 2018 budget, no one knows what that will look like at this point in time so there's little to be gained by discussing it.
https://thinkprogress.org/14-ways-tr...l-fbe42e852730
And again don't blame a Republican controlled House for barely passing TrumpCare. I certainly think that ObamaCare was not a blessing to everyone, but TrumpCare, as currently proposed, will not be either. The Senate will in all likelihood dismantle the House version of the AHCA.
I do blame a GOP controlled House for failing to do the jobs that they have repeatably promised to do. Of course, it took until the middle of 2010 for Obama to get Obamacare passed and he had no GOP votes, resorted to lying and arm twisting to get it done.
The job of people in Congress, whether Republican, Democrat, or other, is to vote for those bills that are in the best interests of those that put him or her into office. It is NOT their "job" to blindly follow the wishes of the POTUS or anyone else.
Obviously people who do not make money will not get a tax break.
No, obviously people who don't PAY TAXES will not get a tax break. The proposed Trump tax plan greatly favors the ultra-wealthy. I am not ultra-wealthy. Trump is. It is estimated that filers who make over $3.7 million will get their taxes lowered by $1 million. Not bad. It is estimated that taxes will go up for about 8.5 million people. My income puts me in the upper middle class (barely) and the estimated tax cut for me will be minimal from all indications. My guess is in the hundreds of dollars.
So the 20% who pay 80% of all the taxes will get a tax break. Sound fair to me. What is your problem?
My problem is that the tax plan gives those 20% a much greater percentage tax break than you and I and all middle class taxpayers will be getting. When you read the analyses done on who wins and who loses under the proposed Trump tax plan, every analysis says that the "rich", meaning those in the highest tax bracket , are winners.
I think a "fair" tax plan makes ALL tax payers winners.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/u...-tax-plan.html
I find your mention of job reports to be so ironic. For 8 years while Obama was in office and the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 4.6% and the number of jobs created month after month after month increased, Obama-haters said the numbers lied.
Obama haters say the numbers lied? No, people who know math say that the numbers lied and we still don't believe them. So we don't want to use the same data like you claim. Now you want to use the same data sources to show how well Trump is doing. But let's move on. Stats show 211,000 jobs were added in April 2017, surpassing the estimate by a little. However, this followed a very disappointing March when only 79,000 jobs were added. And whether or not Trump can take credit for the job growth, which we all know he will, it is debatable as to the real reasons for the growth.
Debatable? Yes, but not winner by Obama standards as he took credit for any and all immediate job growth in 2009. How many times did we hear that jobs losses stopped under him even before he took office? No, by Obama standards Trump can take credit all the way back in November for any new jobs.
Okay, "you" don't want to use the same data that was used while Obama was in office. The data I see says that the unemployment rate went from 10.0% to 4.6%. The same source says that it has gone to 4.4% under Trump. What data source was used under Trump that was different than that used under Obama?
Obama was in office in 2009 and should take credit for job growth while in office. Trump took office in January 2017, not November 2016, and should take credit for job growth from that time on.
Trump has about 3 years before the 2020 election campaign is in full gear. All I'm saying is that as of today, he has no significant achievements while in office. He has done some things which may, in the future, turn out to be significant. Or not. He has some plans that if they come to fruition, will definitely be significant. Right now the AHCA and his proposed tax plan and his proposed budget are in trouble with little chance that they will be passed without MAJOR changes. Time will tell how effective a President Trump will be.
