>>Considering all that's happened and is happening - do you folks here think Trump will last 4 years before he gets either impeached or resigns? I starting to think all this crap with Russia will be his undoing - (although so far I've been wrong every single time I've speculated that he has done himself in).. It's been pretty sad thus far - the failed attempts at a Muslim ban, the insane Obama-care replacement deal, the rolling back of all the work Obama did with the environment, and the appointment of some of the most unqualified people in history to lead departments, etc etc etc. I hope that all those that voted for this idiot have learned just how foolish it was to cast a protest ballot for him thinking that this twit would be better for us that HRC so this doesn't happen to us again (if we are here long enough to vote next time ha). His approval rating is around 35% - and I'd really like to know who these 35% are.and what on earth makes them think he's doing a good (or even reasonable) job. I said it was foolish to have a person with zero experience take this job - surely those here that disagreed with me before here might of changed their minds now that we've seen the result of it what happens?
>
>Victor, I said before the election that both choices were bad. I'll repeat what I said before: HRC had every conventional advantage imaginable, and yet she and the DNC fouled up, big time.

I've said before than you can equate the bad choice of Trump to HRC. No point in re-hashing all the reasons why.

>The travel ban was implemented very badly. (Note: the "Muslim ban" canard has already been debunked several times, so I'm puzzled why you continue to push a false narrative). But regardless, between the travel ban foul-up and the foul-up with the health care policy, Trump and his people are demonstrating that they do not understand what makes for sound policy. You won't get any argument from me there.

Fair enough. (but I still maintain that Trump is attempting a Muslim ban - you can call it whatever you want - but in effect that's what he was attempting)

>Having said that, the prior administration pushed through terrible ACA legislation that harmed millions of lower-middle and middle-income Americans.

Well we've had this argument before. What you're suggesting is that ACA harmed more people than it helped - and that is simply wildly untrue - and as someone that has had access to massive amounts of medical data I can assure you of this.

>The Democratic party paid through their teeth in state/national elections. It's very sad that the Republican party cannot use their power wisely to come up with a better plan - but the fact remains that ACA has been terrible legislation.

I disagree twith your assertion that ACA has been terrible legislation. It's a good step in the right direction.

>Also, while Scott Pruitt has done plenty of mealy-mouthing on the environment, the EPA under Obama was nothing but a political power machine, attempting to push flawed science.

Rolling back EPA regulations and polluting water and the air we breath is stupid - it's called science.

>And remember - if Trump indeed gets impeached (and Maxine Waters gets her wish), then you get Mike Pence. :)

Right - which despite how much I dislike the guy, he is a huge improvement over Trump. That is something the liberals need to grasp.

We can go around and around on you think ACA is bad and that climate change is not real or not caused by humans - we will never agree so no point in endless thread on the same old things.