How do you rate Trump's first 99 days?

@sunrisehawk: you speak of FDR. Well said. He wasn't all that popular in his own first 100 days, or even his first 18 months.

Clinton too was rather unpopular his first 100 days, and became one of the most popular in history (by poll numbers).

Your admonishment re he must be doing something right is appropo. I think he ties his tie well, and his shoelaces never come undone. As for his record on health care, His war on immigrants, border wall, his tearing families apart vis a vis Dreamers etc, his tax policy, environmental plans, lack of knowledge of NATO, abject ignorance on N. Korea/China history, his disrespect to Angela Merkel, to Australia, his sending out Press Secretary as well as butt kisser Conway to lie daily for him....that jury is not out. It is very much in.

He is deplorable!

@CassandraFemale17: Actually most presidents experienced a honeymoon period before their poll numbers dropped. "W" and Trump are really the first two that didn't get much in that category. Actually, from my memory (I did live through that period) Clinton's numbers were normally fairly good and when they dipped, it was due to his actions or inaction.

Plus poll numbers are a terrible way to decide if a President is doing good or bad.

@sunrisehawk: correc. Poll numbers are not a good indicator.

A better indicator would be how their White House was doing and how their agenda was moving forward.

Again, Clinton did poorly at first with respect to his White House. Blunders, ill advised choices in positions, and he too had gone into office as an outsider promising to change things in Washington.(don't they all?).

He picked up steam later on.

As for W, people rallied round him after Sept 11, and he and they exploited that, an had people cowering in fear with him as Lord Protector and he did well thereafter for quite a while, including in his re-election.

I have zero memory of Clinton myself, and I only started becoming aware during W's term. I inhale history though, so I am constantly becoming more educated, but as to each President, it is a slow process. Much slower than I would like it to be.

Do not fault me for not being alive prior to Clinton.
It is entirely my parents fault!

:)

@CassandraFemale17: Not faulting you. Just a suggestion, in your learning history, remember when history written while one is alive or even soon after death, is often biased more than normal. If you desire honest analysis you've got to get back to about Truman. Anyone since, read at least three books by different authors to get an impression. Loved the book a couple of years ago on Coolidge. Keep reading and debating and learning.

@sunrisehawk: I have read probably 12 books o Clinton, and around 9 or 10 on W. I have also read all of their autobiographies, wives and all. Of course the auto's are biased. I have read a few on Nixon and a few by him, as well as FDR, loads on Lincoln, and a few others. I love history and find the connection between Presidents and economics to be fascinating.

I look forward to reading several on Obama too, both pro and con. I like to make up my own mind, but I do respect differing beliefs. Not to mention even those people I prefer have negatives as well as positives. Like the rest of us do, too.

@CassandraFemale17: Good for you. I've been reading histories and biographies since 1st grade. I tend to delve more deeply in the history that I haven't lived through though. Never will know enough.

@sunrisehawk: mhmm, I agree. But each day is living history.

I wish more people realized that, and embraced learning more about it.